The Brief

Los Angeles Unified special education teachers and parents are bracing for another year of large classes when the new school year begins, despite a first-ever limit the union negotiated this spring.

With booming special education enrollment, teachers say the district needs to hire more full-time staff to ensure tens of thousands of students receive the extra support they need — and are legally entitled to — every day.

Under the new contract ratified by UTLA, resource services teachers are limited to supporting 20 students each in integrated classes which include both special and general education students. Resource services teachers are designated to students and collaborate with other teachers to support them.

Classrooms with only special education students have different ratios, and those teachers qualify for a monthly stipend of $500 to $1,000, depending on how many students over the limit they have.

But teachers say that although the extra pay doesn't hurt, they want the district to focus on making both kinds of classes smaller.

Debby Schneider, a special education teacher and UTLA committee chair, told LAist that it’s not about the money.

“The stipend is to deter the district from overloading us. Really, what they need to do is open more programs and hire more educators,” she said.

Stipends for large classes aren’t new, but Schneider told LAist that in previous years, extra compensation didn’t stop the district from overfilling classrooms. Because of that history, she said she’s concerned this year won’t be any different.

As of July 17, there were 22 open positions for teachers in full-time special education classrooms, and three vacancies for those who work in integrated classes.

There are over 70,000 students enrolled in LAUSD’s special education services, which include support for learning disabilities, autism, and hearing and visual impairments. A district spokesperson wouldn't specify how many integrated classrooms are overfilled. The district is “continuously assessing staffing needs,” the district wrote in a statement, but would not comment on specific plans to hire more special ed teachers for the upcoming year.

A growing need

According to UTLA, the number of students in LAUSD’s special education services has grown over 7% since 2022, even though overall student enrollment is down by nearly 4%.

Emily Kolman, whose kindergartner receives speech therapy services, said that resources are overextended and the district isn’t doing much to help.

Kolman said her son was in an integrated class of 26 students last year. She told LAist that the teacher continuously asked the district to help her work with students in smaller groups. That help only came near summer break, which made it hard to identify students who needed extra support through the year.

Kolman and her son's teacher acknowledged that her son needed additional behavioral testing, but it was “like pulling teeth” to get a screening organized by the district. She’s now paying out-of-pocket to get him tested privately.

“I feel like our students with needs are bothersome or a nuisance for the public school” district, she told LAist.

The challenges of larger classes

LAUSD teachers say they can’t support students in growing class sizes alone.

Margaret Miller, an elementary school special education teacher, recalled that in one large integrated classroom she assisted, a student would climb on the teacher while she gave a lesson.

“When you're getting another student, it's not just a body. It's not just a kid in the classroom. It comes with quite a bit of work,” she said.

Amy Bogartz, a teacher of Deaf students, emphasized that in special-needs settings, each student requires personalized support.

“Every student requires something different. You have a student that you just need to check in on. … Then you have that other student that you need to spend three hours with,” she said.

Teresa Gaines is a parent of an 11-year-old with phonological awareness deficit and “focus issues.” She said her family is feeling the impacts of large integrated class size. She told LAist that her son’s classes have ranged from 21 to 24 students and he has often had to wear headphones to block out the noise to concentrate.

Teachers are burning out too

Some teachers said their colleagues are leaving the classroom because they’re stretched too thin to handle student behavior, or because they don’t feel supported by their school’s administration.

According to EdSource, LAUSD’s special education teacher retention rate dropped from 90% to 77% between 2021 and 2024.

UTLA's Schneider explained that the special education workload is particularly challenging. She said some teachers have duties similar to general education teachers, including writing report cards, on top of the special ed services they provide. With extra students, it can cause exhaustion, she told LAist.

Gaines, the parent of the 11-year-old in special ed, said it’s important for the district to retain teachers who have extensive experience with special education.

“I don't want to lose staff who are already teaching and in the system. I'd rather support them … so that they can further benefit all of our students,” she said.

What’s next

Teachers of classes with only special education students can qualify for the new monthly stipend starting this fall. If their class is two or more students larger than the ratio, they will be paid through a process that includes verifying the class roster.

Contract negotiations for next year will begin in the spring.

California’s mandate requiring later start times for middle and high schools is already yielding results, with students sleeping more, reporting better mental health and scoring higher math and English scores, according to a new study.

The new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research examines the effects of Senate Bill 328, California’s statewide mandate for later school start times. The law, which went into effect in 2022, requires most middle schools to start no earlier than 8 a.m. and high schools no earlier than 8:30 a.m.

The study found that the new law increased the share of students sleeping at least eight hours per night by 13%, meeting the minimum recommended for adolescents by health experts. The largest jump was among boys.

The study shows that “rest and sleep are incredibly important in the function of schools,” said Osea Giuntella, an author of the report. Although the short-term increase in sleep is moderate, it has led to significant improvements in mental health and academic outcomes, he said.

Giuntella, a University of Pittsburgh researcher who studies sleep and economics, said the study’s first-year results are consistent with previous research linking better sleep to improved student well-being and academic performance. The study used changes in teachers’ commute arrival times from the American Community Survey as a proxy for later school start times, comparing sleep and mental health data before and after SB 328 took effect in the 2022-2023 school year and tracking academic gains from 2022 through 2025.

Gains in sleep, mental health, English and math

Students reported experiencing better mental health since schools shifted to later start times, with boys reporting the largest reductions in sadness, hopelessness and suicidal ideation, and Hispanic students reporting the biggest drop in difficulties concentrating.

Terra Ziporyn, executive director at nonprofit Start Schools Later and longtime advocate of later school start times, said SB 328 was a key part of California’s response to what schools have described as a student mental health crisis.

“The first step in addressing student mental health problems is to not create them in the first place,” Ziporyn said. “You can get a lot of counselors, but systematically depriving an entire adolescent population of adequate sleep is a surefire way to hurt their mental health.”

The study also found significant improvements in academic achievement, with eighth grade students making measurable gains in math and English, particularly among Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students.

Giuntella, the study’s author, said the improvement in scores was likely “largely driven by the change in sleep” based on comparable studies where increased sleep led to higher GPAs. That’s also why Hispanic students, who are already less likely to get adequate sleep than white students due to lower family income and family and work responsibilities, improved their math and English scores the most, Giuntella said.

Parents struggle with new schedules

The state mandate is the only one in the nation.

“California set a huge precedent for the whole nation by saying, ‘We cannot leave what is essentially a public health decision in the hands of local districts,’ ” Ziproyn said. “It’s not just a negotiable school budget item that you trade off against anything else.”

But some parents have said later start times complicate work commutes, push back sports and extracurricular activities and lead to some students simply pushing back the time they go to bed.

The study found that sports and extracurricular activities did start later after the change to later start times, but the changes were “marginal and not statistically significant,” Giuntella said.

“And it’s true that, yes, students may even go to bed a little later than they were, but they are definitely sleeping in more in the morning,” she said.

Guintella described later start times as just “one institutional factor” that may help address a complex sleep-deprivation problem, pointing to issues like the rise in nighttime screen use.

‘Too hard and too expensive’ for some districts

Some school districts found the transition to later school start times “too hard and too expensive,” Ziporyn said. Ziporyn said district administrators could have received more guidance from the state Department of Education to explain the benefits of later start times, and involve families in finding solutions to logistical problems.

“(Schools) have to fully understand why this is being done and communicate it with confidence to the community that they’re doing the right thing for kids,” Ziporyn said.

San Francisco Unified, for example, worked with operations experts at the Yale School of Management, Georgia Tech University and Northwestern University to redesign their bus routes in response to the change. With more than 120 schools and 18 different start times, the district generated about 1,000 new feasible bus schedules, which ended up saving the district about $5 million and with a majority of families and staff members satisfied with the transition to later start times, according to a report by Yale Insights. 

But most schools in California did not have access to dedicated consultants to ease the transition, Ziporyn said.

“California could have improved making these resources more readily available to the districts,” Ziporyn said. “Built into the law was that there was supposed to be help from the state Department of Education about getting this done, and building that community buy-in is part of it.”

Giuntella said the state can improve its implementation of SB 328 by collecting statewide data on later school start times to “assess the impact of the reform.” In the meantime, schools can take from the study that later start times are “effective and powerful tools” for student outcomes.

“This happens often with some shock to individual and families’ habits, and so it also requires the ability to navigate this transition in a way that doesn’t backfire,” Giuntella said.

As fights about data centers erupt nationwide, California lawmakers have approved a pair of bills to make data center developers disclose how much water they really use.

The bills are a new test of whether California will set limits on an industry that’s becoming a flashpoint over water, electricity and the environmental consequences of artificial intelligence.

Lawmakers on Monday cleared Assembly Bill 2469 by Assemblymember Diane Papan, a Democrat from San Mateo. The bill bars local governments from approving new or expanded data centers unless the developer discloses its water plans and covers the full cost of any new water pipes, treatment or storage for the facility. 

This bill will now join Papan’s Assembly Bill 2619 on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

California senators last week, in a decisive 30 to 9 vote, approved the measure requiring data center operators to report their estimated or actual water sources and use — under penalty of perjury — when seeking and renewing a business license or permit.

It’s almost identical to a bill Papan authored last year, which Newsom vetoed amid pressure from the tech industry.

Newsom said at the time he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements … without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology.”

Papan said she’s often asked whether she thinks her do-over will survive Newsom’s desk, this time.

“To which I say, the opportunity for leadership has not gone away. If anything, it has been amplified,” Papan told CalMatters.

Since Newsom’s veto last year, public sentiment has shifted, with bipartisan backlash building against facilities that have become the ganglia of artificial intelligence.

A Public Policy Institute of California survey found that a majority of residents oppose construction of data centers in their areas, and are concerned about the environmental impacts.

“We currently are seeing a phase of heightened concern because of the rapid evolution of the industry — and the lack of transparency,” said Iris Stewart-Frey, an environmental science professor at Santa Clara University who led a study this year highlighting how rarely data center developers disclose their water use.

“I think that's where these bills can really make some progress in getting the sides back to the table and conversation,” Stewart-Frey said, “and also recreate some of this public trust.”

Lack of oversight, local bans

Opacity around data centers’ environmental impact is fueling fights around the state, from the desert and parched Imperial County to cities and farm towns.

With little oversight and even less state direction, local governments are saying no to data centers, citing concerns about environmental issues, electricity rates, and often, water.

Monterey Park, in the San Gabriel Valley, led the way when voters approved a permanent ban in June. The Coachella City Council approved its own ban last week to public applause. Others including the Tulare County Board of Supervisors are pausing as they weigh more permanent moratoriums.

Nationally, New York State has enacted a yearlong moratorium, and 70% of Americans told a Gallup poll that they oppose the facilities.

A fight over a data center in the city of Gilroy, in Santa Clara County, recently made national news, which Stewart-Frey attributed to growing public awareness and distrust of the secretive industry.

“It's also emblematic of the fact that the data center industry in California has not been releasing actual water use data, right?” said Stewart-Frey. “This lack of transparency is also biting them in the back here.”

Papan said that’s the point of her bills.

“I don't think we should be eliminating anything without sufficient knowledge about what their needs are, and then how can we meet those needs,” Papan said. “Help us help you,” she said, to data center developers, “because if you go into an area that doesn't have sufficient water supply for you, it's not going to work.”

The usual suspects, and new wildcards

The usual coalitions have lined up. Environmental and community groups back the bills, seeking more transparency over how much water these facilities really use. On the other side are the heavy-hitting and big-spending tech industry and business groups.

Khara Boender, a Western government affairs director for the Data Center Coalition, said the trade association is concerned that these bills single out data centers from other non-agricultural water users.

Reporting tied to receiving a business license or permit “should apply to other similar commercial and industrial users, as that would provide context and a holistic view of water demands,” Boender told CalMatters.

A few wildcards have also entered the fight. As of mid-August, the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the Rural County Representatives of California opposed Papan’s bill requiring developers to disclose water plans and pay for upgrades.

In a July letter the groups said the measure — which would bar local governments from approving data centers that fail to disclose required information about their water plans — “undermines local governments’ ability to protect and represent their communities through established permitting mechanisms and community engagement processes.”

Water agencies have mostly stayed quiet, raising only technical issues, with one exception: Santa Clara Valley Water District, a water wholesaler in a data center hotspot, supported both bills.

“Despite local efforts to mitigate the impact of data center water demand, more information on water use could help local water agencies, such as Valley Water, plan for actual needs,” Joshua Golka, head of state government relations for Valley Water, said in a letter to Papan Friday.

Necessary but not sufficient 

Michael Kiparsky, director of the Wheeler Water Institute at the UC Berkeley Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment, called Papan’s bills “necessary, but not sufficient.”

He expects that even with more data, small communities with limited resources and staff will still struggle to assess the benefits and risks. The version of AB 2619 that senators approved last week cut an earlier provision requiring California agencies to develop guidance for local governments.

Papan said that guidance would have been nice to have, but that there were state costs associated with developing it. An Assembly analysis estimated that developing water-use and emerging technology guidelines would cost $2 million the first year, and $1 million annually after that.

“The main goal has been transparency. Let me give you the data, and let's go from there,” Papan told CalMatters. “I just didn't want anything to divert from that main goal.”

Kiparsky called for the state to establish a strike team to help small communities analyze the data that would be produced under the legislation. He also thinks the state should post this information in one place so officials and academics can assess the impacts of data centers and the policies regulating them.

“To be really clear, data centers are not bad or good … we use them every day for just about everything we do involving technology,” Kiparsky said.

The real question, he said, is whether a given community — and its specific mix of land, water, and energy resources — is the right spot for one.

“You can’t answer those questions just with what’s required from this bill — you need to have the understanding that comes from experts looking at it,” Kiparsky said. “The state, in my opinion, can and should provide that.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Erik and Lyle Menendez may get another chance at parole — and a bit sooner than expected.

The brothers were convicted of murder for the August 1989 shotgun killings of their parents in their Beverly Hills home. They’ve been held in prison for more than three decades.

On Monday, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation revealed the brothers had been granted a parole suitability hearing tentatively scheduled for March 2027. Previously, the state had determined they would not get another parole hearing until August 2028.

The Menendez family issued a statement Monday, expressing appreciation to the Parole Board for recognizing the brothers’ efforts to change themselves and help others in prison.

“For almost 40 years, Erik and Lyle have worked to take responsibility for their actions, confront and heal from the unimaginable abuse and trauma they endured, grow as individuals, and dedicate themselves to serving others,” the statement read.

It continued: “Through efforts such as helping to establish a hospice program and creating Green Space, they have sought to build an environment that reminds people serving life sentences that their lives still have meaning and that, regardless of their circumstances, they can choose each day to grow, heal, accept accountability, and contribute something of value to the world around them.”

Background

Erik Menendez was 18 years old at the time of the murders. He’s now 55.

Lyle Menendez is now 58. He was 21 in 1989.

The brothers were tried twice in the 1990s in connection with the killings of their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez. The brothers claimed they were sexually abused by their father, a wealthy business and former music executive, and that their mother had been complicit.

The first trial ended in a hung jury and a mistrial.

The defense argued that the brothers believed their lives were in danger at the time of the killings, and that their actions were not murder but imperfect self defense, meaning they genuinely believed the danger was imminent even if they were wrong.

In the second trial, the sexual abuse evidence was limited, and the jury reached a verdict.

The brothers were sentenced to life in prison without parole.

A chance at parole

After they spent decades in prison, the brothers' asked the court for a hearing that would give them a chance at getting out. A judge later resentenced each of them to 50 years to life, making them eligible for parole.

Last August, the brothers were denied parole for three years.

Parole commissioners said they took into account the brothers’ positive actions while in prison as well as their ages at the time of their crimes. But the commissioners also found each sibling would still pose a danger to the public if released, despite their efforts at rehabilitation.

It’s not clear why parole authorities moved up the brothers’ tentative parole suitability hearing date, but family members said they were grateful.

The family said in the statement that the move brings them “one step closer to a future with [the brothers] that once seemed impossible.”

Tropical Storm Marie dumped around an inch of rain in the Southern California region over the Labor Day weekend. Forecasters say we might see minimal rain on Tuesday in the region, and temperatures are expected to rise for a hot and humid week ahead.

Coastal flood and high surf advisories are in effect for Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange and San Diego counties until Tuesday 11 p.m.

Officials with the National Weather Service warned beachgoers that there was an increased risk of drowning in the ocean.

“Rip currents will be widespread and very strong, potentially pulling swimmers and surfers out to sea,” the advisory read.

They also advised beachgoers to remain out of the water or, if they do go in, to stay near occupied lifeguard towers and away from rock jetties.

Effects of Marie

Southern California felt the effects of the tropical storm on Sunday particularly along the coast. In Long Beach, one person was injured after being hit by a piece of plywood while prepping their home for the storm.

Long Beach Fire Department Capt. Jack Crabtree told LAist that 12 garages and two homes in the city flooded. City lifeguards and Fire Department personnel rescued three surfers, he said.

Waves pushed Long Beach’s water taxi, the Aqua Link, into the Alamitos Jetty. The Fire Department’s Marine Safety Division pushed it back onto the water, Crabtree said.

In Newport Beach, Adam Yacenda, lifeguard battalion chief for the Fire Department in Newport Beach, told LAist the department had conducted 187 rescues over the weekend as of Monday morning.

The majority of those rescues — 177 — happened Saturday.

Even so, he said, “the rain was a nice reprieve,” from most long weekends, when the department is usually much busier. He said many people stayed away from the beaches. The red flag surf warnings were also a deterrent.

Because of the high surf advisory, Yacenda advised beachgoers to stay out of the water through Tuesday. But for those who plan to get into the water anyway, he recommended speaking with a lifeguard who can provide advice on some locations that are safer than others.

Further south in San Clemente, high surf damaged the Metrolink Pacific Surfliner track. Service was paused from the Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo station in Orange County to the Oceanside stop in San Diego County while crews made emergency repairs.

Two beach parking lots are closed in Seal Beach because of flooding concerns.

What’s ahead

Rose Schoenfeld, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service, told LAist there is a small chance of thunderstorms Monday and Tuesday afternoon.

 ”We're not completely out of the woods for any precipitation, but should be much more isolated, generally more minimal,” she said.

Schoenfeld said she expects a warming trend to start Monday and continue through the week.

 ”By Wednesday when temperatures will be peaking, we're looking at temperatures even at the coast, 90s to maybe around 106,” she said. “That's pretty warm.

"And then if you add on top of that the tropical humidity that we still will have lingering in the area, we're looking at a pretty significant heat event, especially for those near the coast without air conditioning,” she continued.

Because of the humidity, low temperatures later in the day won’t be as cooling as they would be otherwise.