CCAE: July 7, 2016 Adult Education Update

Adult Education Update from CCAE - California Council for Adult Education

epor: Adult Education Block Grant Program: Report AB 1846 (Lopez):  Adult Education Blog Grant Program (Report)  Current law requires the chancellor and the Superintendent to submit to the Director of Finance, the State Board of Education, and the Legislature, by September 30 following any year for which funds are appropriated for the Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) Program, a report about the use of specified funds and outcomes for adults statewide and in each adult education region. this bill would require that report to also include a summary, based upon a review of the annual adult education plan for each consortium, of the extent to which funds from the program provided to each consortium, in combination with other funds available to the consortium and other entities that provide education and workforce services for adults in the region, were insufficient to address the adult education demands within the service area of the consortium. Position:  CCAE & CAEAA SUPPORT Notes:  As originally introduced, the bill would have added $250 million to the AEBG; however, the Legislature and Administration prefers to have at least one more year under the AEBG framework before adding more resources to the pot of funding. Status: Pending hearing in Senate Appropriations on 8/1 Review:http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1846  AB 1876 (Lopez): Pupils: Diploma Alternatives: Language Options Current law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to issue a high school equivalency certificate and an official score report, or an official score report only, to a person who has not completed high school and who meets specified requirements, including, among others, having taken all or a portion of a general education development test that has been approved by the State Board of Education. Commencing January 1, 2019, this bill would prohibit the department from approving or renewing approval of a contractor or testing center to administer the tests described above unless the contractor or testing center provides those tests in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Position:  Concerns Notes:  CCAE and CAEAA had concerns with the bill as initially introduced as it would have required HSE testing to be developed in multiple non-English languages.  Members were concerned about the costs associated with translation, equivalency, and more particularly with so little funding already available to adult schools for maintaining programming and services.  While the bill was scaled back to focus merely on English, Spanish and Vietnamese, the bill was ultimately held in Senate Education as a result of concerns regarding the necessity of translation and feasibility of such. Status: Held in Senate Education, Dead for 2016 Review: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1876 AB 2058 (Mayes): CalWORKs: Education Incentives Would create the CalWORKs Educational Opportunity and Attainment Program to provide CalWORKs recipients with a monthly education incentive grant of $100 for attainment of a high school diploma or its equivalent, $200 for attainment of an associate's degree or career technical education program, or $300 for attainment of a bachelor's degree, if the educational program was completed while the recipient was receiving CalWORKs assistance. The bill would require the education incentive grant to be provided on an ongoing basis if the recipient meets certain eligibility criteria. Position:  CCAE & CAEAA SUPPORT Status: Held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File, Dead for 2016 Review: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2058   AB 2860 (Brown): Adult Education: Adult Education Block Grant Program: Appeals Board Current law, Existing law requires the chancellor and the Superintendent, with the advice of the executive director, to approve, for each consortium, rules and procedures that adhere to prescribed conditions. This bill would give a consortium member the right to submit an appeal to the Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) Appeals Board, which the bill would establish and that would consist of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Executive Director of the State Board of Education. Position:  CCAE & CAEAA SUPPORT Status: Held in the Assembly Higher Education Committee, Dead for 2016 Review: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2860     SCR 116 (Mendoza): Adult Education Week This bill would proclaim the week of April 3, 2016, to April 9, 2016, inclusive, as Adult Education Week, and would honor the teachers, administrators, classified staff, and students of adult education programs statewide for their efforts, persistence, and accomplishments. Position:  CCAE & CAEAA SUPPORT Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State Review: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SCR116    2016 Budget Signed by the Governor   After the Legislature taking action and passing the budget on the constitutionally mandated date of June 15th, Governor Jerry Brown last week signed the state budget for FY 2016-2017. The approved budget at $167 billion includes $122.5 billion in General Fund spending, $44.6 billion in special fund spending, and $3.6 billion in bond spending.  Overall, the budget package continues to focus on the Governor's interest in fiscal stability by doubling the state's Rainy Day Fund, continuing to pay down debt, increasing school funding and boosting programs to combat poverty and homelessness.  Other significant components include:   -       Boost Rainy Day Fund, Pay Debt - adds an extra $2 billion to the required $1.3 billion deposit, bringing total reserves to $6.7 billion (54% of goal); directs $1.75 billion to the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties; and directs $1.3 billion to pay down debt and liabilities -       Investing in Education - Increases the minimum funding guarantee for K-12 and community colleges to $71.9 billion including per K-12 funding to $10,643 and $2.9 billion in new funding to Local Control Funding Formula -       Counteracting Poverty - Includes the statutorily increased minimum wage adjustment to $10.50 per hour in 2017; cost-of-living increases for Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment; repeals the maximum family grant rule in CalWORKs; and limits the state's asset recovery from the estates of deceased Medi-Cal recipients -       Reducing Housing Costs - Provides $3.6 billion in funding and awards authority for affordable housing and homelessness programs, such as CalWORKs and emergency homeless shelters; sets aside $400 million for allocation at a later date for affordable housing programs; authorizes a $2 billion bond from a portion of future Proposition 63 mental health revenues for homelessness and affordable housing programs for the mentally ill and more -       Strengthening Infrastructure - Includes $2 billion for state infrastructure improvements and maintenance, $1.3 billion for state buildings, $270 million in lease-revenue bond authority for local jails; and $688 million for critical deferred maintenance at state levees, parks, universities, community colleges, prisons, hospitals and other facilities   Specific to adult education, we were able to secure a few beneficial enhancements to the Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG).  The enhancements to AEBG were contained within trailer bill AB 1602 (Budget), as follows:   -       Enhances language under AEBG rules and procedures to ensure a requirement that, in its decision-making process, the consortium consider input provided by pupils, teachers employed by local educational agencies, community college faculty, principals, administrators, classified staff, and the local bargaining units of the school districts and community college districts before it makes a decision; -       Requires a member, if chosen to be the fiscal agent of a consortium, to commit to developing a process to apportion funds to each member of the consortium pursuant to the consortium's plan within 45 days of receiving funds appropriated for the program; -       Requires the chancellor and the Superintendent to submit preliminary reports on or before October 30th following each fiscal year for which funds are appropriated, and final reports on or before February 1st of the following year regarding the use of available funds and outcomes for adults statewide and in each adult education region; -       No later than August 1, 2017, requires the chancellor and the Superintendent to report to the Director of Finance, the State Board of Education, and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature on options for integrating the assessments described above into a specified common assessment system, compliance of the assessments with federal and state funding requirements for adult education programs, estimated costs and timelines for the assessments, and changes in policies that may be needed to avoid duplicate assessments; -       Appropriates, for the 2016-17 fiscal year, $5,000,000 from the General Fund to the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges for allocation via joint decision by the chancellor and the Superintendent to a community college district, school district, county office of education, or adult education consortium to provide statewide leadership for community college districts and local educational agencies participating in the Adult Education Block Grant Program for FYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19;   With regard to the level of funding for the AEBG, we did not see an increase in funding granted for the next fiscal year - not unexpected.  Although we have been talking with the Department of Finance (DOF) and Legislature for the last year on the need to grow the pot of funds, they were not inclined to do so for FY 16-17.  The rationale was based on a few key factors - 1) AEBG is only one year old and they want to monitor progress for another year; 2) AEBG funding in some regions wasn't distributed until the end of the school year; and 3) DOF continues to be concerned about future revenues with a projected return of recessionary conditions within the next year to eighteen months.    All of this said, we'll be continuing the push for additional funding as part of the FY 17-18 budget cycle.  More to come on that front in the coming months...    In addition to the AB 1602 provisions related to AEBG, it also contained a framework and funding for the Strong Workforce Initiative/Program under the community college system.  The Program would be provided $200 million in ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to expand the availability of quality CTE and workforce development courses, pathways, and programs resulting in certificates, degrees, and other credentials.   Under the Program, community colleges would coordinate CTE programs within 14 regions identified under the state's implementation of the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).  These regions would create "collaboratives" of community college districts, local education agencies, interested CSU and UC campuses, civic representatives, workforce development boards, representatives from the organized labor community, and economic development and industry sector leaders.  Collaboratives would meet at least annually to develop four-year plans to meet regional workforce education needs. These plans would include a needs assessment based on regional labor market analyses, efforts to coordinate existing programs in the region, student success goals, and work plans for meeting regional priorities. Funding would be distributed to a college in each region acting as a fiscal agent; that college would distribute funding to other colleges within the region based on the plan. The allocation would reflect each region's share of the state's: (1) unemployment, (2) CTE enrollment, (3) projected job openings, and (4) after the first year, successful performance outcomes. The Chancellor's Office could reserve up to 5 percent of annual program funding for statewide coordination activities.  The proposal calls for the Chancellor's Office to align the performance measures, to the extent possible, with federal WIOA performance measures. (These include measures of degree and certificate completion, employment, and earnings.) Collaboratives would set measurable goals for performance in each of these areas and provide annual updates of their progress in meeting the goals. Beginning January 1, 2018, the Chancellor would be required to report annually to the Governor and Legislature on each region's performance outcomes (disaggregated for underserved demographic groups). As part of these reports, the Chancellor would be required to provide recommendations for program improvement and for future allocations to collaboratives based on program outcomes.  The Chancellor's Office would be required to develop recommendations, including policies, regulations, and guidance necessary to facilitate sharing of best practices and curricula across colleges, streamline course and curriculum approval, and eliminate barriers to hiring qualified instructors (including reevaluating the required minimum qualifications for CTE instructors), among other efforts. The Chancellor would present the recommendations to the Board of Governors by June 30, 2017.   60% of funding will go directly to colleges, with 40% going to regional consortia. Language also requires consortia to collaborate with regional workforce partners, report on one-time versus ongoing spending, and encourages consortia to work with programs and providers that seek to improve workforce outcomes for the developmentally 16 disabled. Funding will be based on a formula that includes local unemployment rate, the region's proportion of CTE full-time equivalent students, projected job openings, and proportion of successful workforce outcomes.   Does this framework sound familiar?  It should...   While CCAE and CAEAA raised concerns with an entirely new and yet strikingly duplicative framework being developed outside of the regional consortia under AEBG, we are unfortunately not able to access the funding as it is being provided as part of the community colleges' share of Proposition 98 - outside of K-12 funding.  Despite not having access to the funding going forward, we were successful in including trailer bill language that, to avoid duplication of effort, requires activities funded under the Strong Workforce Program to be informed by, aligned with, and expanding upon the activities of existing workforce and education regional partnerships, including those partnership activities that pertain to regional planning efforts established pursuant to WIOA, AEBG consortia, and K-12 career technical education programs.  Additionally, the language requires these regions to collaborate with other public institutions, including, but not limited to, local educational agencies, adult education consortia, local workforce development boards, and interested California State University and University of California institutions.   Being aware of this Program is very important from our perspective as AEBG consortia look at budget allocations.  Recall, under AEBG Education Code Section § 84905(b) a condition of joining a consortium is that each member "shall commit to reporting any funds available to that member for the purposes of education and workforce services for adults and the uses of those funds."  As you'll remember, CCAE and CAEAA fought hard for this language to be included so as to help consortium members better prioritized the use of the precious AEBG resources for those needs that weren't otherwise being funded by other pots of money members may have access to.  In this case, consortia members across the state should be aware that this funding is available to community college partners that could, arguably, help free up AEBG dollars for K-12 needs that are not currently being funded.  Of note, however, these are local decisions and it is critical consortia members understand that these are decisions to be discussed and addressed at the local level not at the state level.    For more information, please see https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19463.

"Why California's Adult Schools Need More Money" - from Save Your Adult School

With permission from Kristen Pursley:

Why California’s Adult Schools Need More Money

Posted on March 26, 2016 by kpursley

 

While California’s economy  rebounds, and educational institutions from K-12 schools to universities receive healthy increases in funding, California’s adult schools remain mired in the great recession.  A new bill authored by Assemblywoman Patty Lopez (D-San Fernando), AB 1846, seeks to remedy this situation. AB 1846 would increase the Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG)  by $250 million, returning the amount of funding available to adult schools to roughly  pre-recession levels.  AB 1846 would provide sorely-needed relief to adult schools, which have been woefully underfunded for the last eight years. In addition to hampering the ability of adult schools to provide much needed services to their students, the current inadequate level of funding also locks into place inequalities that are the result of a desperate scramble for survival. As is usually the case in such struggles, the neediest were the losers, while those with more resources fared better. Without better funding, California’s adult schools cannot hope to fulfill their new mandate to serve those most in need, fill gaps in service, and help adults overcome barriers that keep them from accessing educational services.

Hit the link to read more.

AB 1112 (Lopez): New Hope for Family Literacy and Parent Education

Assemblymember Patty Lopez has introduced AB 1112, which would provide state funding for Family Literacy and Parent Education.  State funding for Parent Education will otherwise end on June 30th, 2015, as Parent Education is not one of the five core programs funded through AB86. 

Analysis of Assembly Bill 1112 (Lopez)

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

 Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

 AB 1112 (Lopez) – As Amended March 26, 2015

 [Note: This bill is doubled referred to the Assembly Higher Education Committee and will be heard by that Committee as it relates to issues under its jurisdiction.]

SUBJECT: Adult education: consortia: parenting education: family literacy education 

SUMMARY: Authorizes adult programs, California Community Colleges (CCC) noncredit courses and classes, and the adult education regional consortia, established pursuant to Education Code (EC) Section 84830, to provide family literacy education. Specifically, this bill: 

Hit the link to read the rest.

All Out For Berkeley Adult School

Destabilization leads to problems.

Destabilization makes an individual, a group, or an institution vulnerable to disease, infiltration, attack, and at worst, death or extinction.

Stabilization not only keeps the individual, group or institution strong, it enables the individual, group or institution to provide shelter, support, and sustenance to others. 

Help or harm - in domino effect.

Hit the "read more" link to see how that plays out in Berkeley.

Parent Ed & Older Adults: What's An Adult School To Do?

Because AB86 includes just these 5 programs, it is complicated for folks on the ground, especially the folks in K12 Adult Schools, to know how or if to include Parent Education and Older Adults classes. 

Parent Education and Older Adults have long been part of Adult Education - and they still are on the CDE (California Department of Education) Adult Education Program Overview page.  But when we shift into the new Regional Consortia system in 2015, they won't be funded by the state anymore. 

At the same time, more and more research shows the value of both programs and the savings they provide to the state.

Hit the "read more" to learn more.

Immigrant Parents Need More Support

I and others have written numerous times about the need to keep the Adult Education mission broad - to continue to fund Parent Education and Older Adults, as well as Financial Literacy and Home Economics - all traditional members of the Adult Ed family.  The following article from Inter Press Service News Agency is a good demonstration of why.  (The article is in full below my comments.)

 

It is frustrating to know that the Los Angeles Family Literacy Program does exactly what this article says is needed - but is slated to be cut.  

 

Soft money is not the answer for the LA Family Literacy Program and it's not the answer for saving other programs put in jeopardy by the narrowing of the Adult Education mission.

 

Soft money, in fact, is not needed.  We have more than enough money to pay for these programs.  The public wants public education and the public wants to fund it. That is why we voted for Prop 30.

It is now the work of our political representative to understand the intention behind that vote and create the legislation needed to make it happen.

 

I suspect the public would also vote for an oil extraction tax with the money going to fund education and other public services.  We are the only state in the Union which does not do this.  Texas and Alaska make big money by taxing the extraction of oil, gas and other natural resources from their soil.  We choose not to.  Why?  Who is that benefiting?  Certainly, not the people of California.

 

Charging fees for these programs is not the answer, either.  That might work in wealthy communities but wealthy communities are the not the communities most in need and they are not the communities on which the health and prosperity of our people depend.

 

We need these programs.  We want these programs.  We have the money to pay for these programs.  And we have voted to tax ourselves in order to pay for them.  Now let our representatives "read our lips and ballot boxes" and do the work we put them into office to do.

 

Is that work hard?  Sure.  But is it as hard as the lives of the folks in this article?  No.  No, it is not.

 

 

US Education System Not Helping Immigrant Parents 

           Sunday, 08 June 2014

 

By Michelle Tullo

 

Washington - Immigrant parents in the United States face serious challenges accessing early elementary programmes for their children, advocates here are warning.

The centrality of parents in early childhood education is undisputed, yet a new report from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), a Washington-based think tank, highlights a broad lack of programming for immigrant parents. The report lists gaps in translation services as well as cultural and systems knowledge for parents as primary obstacles, and notes significant potential impacts on children’s education.

“With one in four young children in the United States living in an immigrant family, efforts to build trust and establish meaningful two-way communication with these families is an urgent priority,” states the report, released this week.

In recent years, U.S. policymakers have increased efforts to improve early childhood education. In January 2013, for instance, President Barack Obama introduced his Plan for Early Education for all Americans, which focuses on children to age five and includes funding high-quality preschool for all low- and moderate-income children.

Yet plans like this and others often overlook the importance of supporting immigrant parents, especially those with limited English-language proficiency. MPI’s researchers warn that fast-changing demographics in the United States are making this oversight increasingly problematic.
“Immigration for the longest time had been a five-state issue, but now it’s a 40-state issue,” Margie McHugh, one of the report’s authors, said at a briefing Monday.

Of the one in four young children in the U.S. with immigrant parents, 45 percent are low-income, and their parents are twice as likely as native-born parents to have less than a high school diploma.

“This represents a significant risk factor for many young children of immigrants,” the report states, “given that maternal educational attainment is closely linked with education outcomes for children, and parental education is closely linked with family earnings and economic well-being.”

Budget victims

Currently, no federal programme exists to explicitly support and engage immigrant parents in the United States, while ongoing budget battles in Washington are impacting on initiatives that have partially filled this gap.

The government has cut funds for Head Start, a federal programme that provides public preschool and health services to low-income children. And Even Start, a federal family literacy programme that integrated adult literacy with parenting education, was defunded in 2010.

These cuts disproportionately affect immigrant families.

Some programmes do exist, either through private or piecemeal funding, but these advocates say these typically lack accountability standards and continuity, since funding is so fickle. Such initiatives also tend not to communicate or coordinate with one another, meaning, for instance, that programmes aimed at secondary education do not build on those for primary schooling.

Focus group participants from MPI’s study said that programmes offered very limited translation and interpretation services, and generally ignored languages other than Spanish. Some projects did offer classes to parents, but long waiting lists, inconvenient hours or lack of child care reportedly deterred parents – despite a strong desire to participate.

“I don’t go to [parent engagement] programmes like this because one time I went, and the school had me waiting for an hour, standing around and waiting for an interpreter,” one parent told MPI researchers. “I was so tired of waiting – I have no idea what they told me in the end and they didn’t help me at all.”

Even when translation services are provided or parents speak English, understanding teachers or school materials requires a substantial understanding of the U.S. education lexicon and culture.
One federal project, Promise Neighborhoods, is funding a pilot programme specifically geared towards immigrant parents in a neighbourhood near Washington.

“In the majority of the families we work with, the parents are trying to be deeply engaged in their children’s lives,” Eliza Leighton, the programme’s director, told IPS.

“Many parents came to this country to make sure their kids have access to quality education, yet when they arrive they find there’s very limited information available for them.”

The lack of information leaves parents unaware of available resources and also leaves them in the dark about early childhood development.

“For example, many parents work under the misconception that they should only read to their child in English – and if it’s not in English, then they shouldn’t read at all,” Leighton says. “That’s not true. It’s wonderful to read to your child, even if it’s not in English.”

The pilot project has four main components.

First are “parent promoters”, each of whom has about 50 families to connect to the community.

Second is a 13-week parent and teacher class, conducted mostly in Spanish, to teach parents how to support their child’s development.

The third component is a series of community events to build a support community for immigrant parents.

Finally, the last part is a class to educate teachers on the linguistic and cultural needs of their students and families.

If the programme is successful, supporters say it could be expanded throughout the country.

Data needed

MPI notes that increasing the collection of pertinent data would increase the visibility of immigrant parents for school administrators, especially parents who speak a language other than Spanish.

Currently, from the school to federal level, data collection begins in kindergarten. But more information could help teachers better understand the needs of their students and help policymakers hear demands for programming catered to immigrant parents.

Of course, programmes to educate immigrant parents overlap with the field of adult education, like adult literacy classes. However, few federal adult-education programmes meet the needs of parents that lack English-language proficiency.

“Right now, adult education programmes are only meeting about four percent of needs,” McHugh said.

“The other dynamic … is that a lot of existing capacity is dedicated to people trying to get their [high school degrees] and post-secondary degrees. And that is a desired outcome, but that type of programme does not meet the needs of immigrant parents.”

The report also stresses the need for non-traditional family literacy programmes or adult education programmes, but structured in such a way that they can wrap together cultural knowledge, language and literacy, and systems knowledge.

“Partnerships with families are a bedrock for strong early childhood development,” said Miriam Calderon, a former senior policy analyst for early learning at the White House.

Calderon highlighted the report’s recommendation to institute a federal pilot programme that can draw from the lessons of Even Start, both from what worked on the ground and also why support for the programme ultimately declined.

“Policies regarding family engagement … lack teeth and are largely misused,” said Calderon.

Visit IPS news for fresh perspectives on development and globalization. 

 

 

Tomorrow, Tuesday, June 10th, SB 173 which does not yet fully embrace and support state-funded Adult Education for Parent Education and Older Adults, will go before the Assembly Higher Education Committee.   

 

If you wish to contact the Higher Education Committee to express your support for a full and fully funded mission for Adult Education, you can find contact information here.

 

 

173: Finding the Spring

SB 173 goes before the Assembly Higher Ed Committee on Tuesday, June 10th at 1:30 pm.

SB 173 has gone through a number of changes since it last appeared before this same committee back in August of 2013.

At that time, SB 173 excluded Parent Education and Older Adults Adult Education courses from funding by the state.

I and others attended that hearing to ask that SB 173 be amended so that those programs were not excluded. 

At that time, CCAE - the California Council of Adult Education - spoke for SB 173 and CFT - the California Federation of Teachers - spoke against it. 

Various community members and organizations also spoke both for and against it. 

This issue of narrowing the mission of Adult Ed is not the only part of the bill that has incited controversy and argument but I would say it is the issue that has caused the most heat and the most division in the Adult Ed community.   I wrote about that division here.

I am a member of both CCAE and CFT.  I agree with both organizations on some points and disagree with them on others.  I am grateful that both organizations exist and I "put my money where my mouth is" through my membership, dues, and participation in both organizations.

At the hearing in August of 2013, I said that I thought SB 173 should be amended to include Parent Education and Older Adults, as well as Financial Literacy and Home Economics, the other two programs slated to be excluded.  Recently, I think more and more about Financial Literacy and Home Economics.  Imagine if Californians better understood financial matters?  And running their home in an economically wise way?  Imagine.  Yes now.  For just this moment.  Imagine.  Yes.  Wow.  It's that important.

I still think SB 173 should be amended.  You can read why here. 

You can also read this Save Your Adult School post which very factually and eloquently combs through both the benefits and shortcomings of SB 173.

The view that SB 173 needs further amending is not a popular view and in the eyes of many, it is not a practical view. 

But having just come from a week on the Mountain during which I had time to swim and sit and hike and think...  to visit with my daughter and a friend...  to think about my family... which consists of many folks connected to me by blood, law, love, and water...  to read Mercedes Schneider's amazing book, "A Chronicle of Echoes:  Who's Who in the Implosion of the American Public Education" and think about what's really at the root of the arguments around SB 173 and Designated Funding for K12 Adult Schools and how to include teacher, student and community voice in the formation of the Regional Consortia and all the other things we in the field of Adult Education talk and argue about...

hit the "read more" link to find out what I figured out

SB 1017: The Next Step for Public Education

Remember Prop 30?  The proposition we all got behind to get needed funding for Public Education, including Adult Education?

Signal Hill, Long Beach, California 1920s

Well, here's the next step, SB 1017.  It's a tax on oil and gas extraction.  That means, when a company takes oil or gas out of California soil, they have to pay California some money - just like they have to do in Texas and Alaska.  They have to pay a lot of money when they take oil out of the ground in Texas and Alaska and 19 other oil-producing states but they don't have to pay anything here. No, here in California, they can pull money oil out of the ground, sell it to you, make a profit on it, but not pay a cent in taxes for the right to extract one of California's greatest natural resources.

The money would go for higher education, and health and human services.  Higher Education includes the Community College system which is involved in Adult Education through the new Regional Consortia system.

And remember what I said about lobbyists in the post about the May Revise and the budget?

"A ground breaking report released on April 1, 2014 by the ACCE Institute and Common Cause reveals that Big Oil spent $123.6 million to lobby elected officials in California over the past 15 years, an increase of over 400 percent since the 1999-2000 legislative session, when the industry spent $4.8 million."  You can read more about that here.

Then you can read the following action alert from CFT - California Federation of Teachers.

(Note:  San Mateo Adult School Teachers, including myself, and many other Adult Ed teachers belong to CFT.)

May 15, 2014   Take Action Now! We have an opportunity to continue the work of Proposition 30 in restoring public education programs and making the tax code of California fairer to working people and the middle class.  That opportunity is called the “Oil Extraction Tax” (click here to read all about the bill). I’m asking you to help. As you know, Proposition 30 passed in 2012, thanks to your vote and hard work.  That’s why this year, for the first time since the beginning of the Great Recession, there were no state cuts to education, and only a handful of layoff notices, and we have begun to restore programs decimated over the years.  But we still have a long way to go before we have the tools to give California families the education system it deserves and needs. California is the only state out of twenty one oil-producing states that has no oil extraction tax.  Even Alaska and Texas tax the oil corporations for the privilege of drilling for this resource.  If California had a similar tax, it would bring our state budget close to two billion dollars, from an industry making enormous profits and that can and should easily pay their fair share.   This year State Senator Noreen Evans is carrying SB 1017, the Oil Extraction Tax.  [Click here to see Evans speaking at a rally for the tax.] Similar bills have been proposed for years, but they have been killed by oil industry lobbying.  SB 1017 has gotten farther this year than previous efforts.  This is because legislators and the public have been recognizing schools need more revenues, and learning about the existence of this corporate tax loophole while revenues for our schools and services lag behind the needs of the state. Here’s how you can help.  Click here to send an email to Senator Kevin DeLeon, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to support SB 1017, the Oil Extraction Tax.  The tax would fund higher education as well as health and human service programs. I am aware of the challenge we face to pass this bill.  The oil lobby is one of the most powerful in the state. But the pundits said California would never pass a statewide tax measure—and then we passed Prop 30.  The Oil Extraction Tax is within our reach as well.  It is the right thing for our students, and the right thing for our state. In solidarity, Joshua Pechthalt, President California Federation of Teachers  George Eagleton and other roughnecks at work drilling oil in California in the 1920s. How about it, Grandpa, have the bosses broke even yet? Have they cleared enough profit that they can give back to the people of California some of what they took from its soil?

SB 173: May 2014 Update

SB173 has gone through many, many changes.

By the way, "SB" means Senate Bill.  That means the bill was introduced by a Senate.  It has to go through all the steps in both the Senate and the Assembly in order to become a law.

You can read about the steps a bill must go through to become a law in California here.

This link will allow you to see the history of the bill and compare versions past and present and read analyses of each hearing had on the bill along the way.


It is now called Education Funding:  Adult Education. 

Senator Carol Liu introduced it in February 2013.

It was mostly recently amended and re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education on May 12, 2014.  

The next step will be a date when that committee discusses, hears testimony, and votes on the bill.

Here is the most recent version:

SB-173 Education funding: adult education.(2013-2014)

SECTION 1. Section 52524 is added to the Education Code, to read:

52524. (a) The department, in conjunction with the chancellor’s office, shall coordinate and issue assessment policy guidelines regarding assessments to be used by school districts and community college districts for purposes of placement in adult education courses offered pursuant to Section 84830.

(b) The department and the chancellor’s office, as a part of the report and recommendations required pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 84830, shall jointly develop and issue policy recommendations to the Legislature regarding a comprehensive accountability system for adult education courses offered pursuant to Sections 41976 and 84757. The department and the chancellor’s office shall develop recommendations for all adult education-funded providers for assessment, evaluation, and data collection to document participant outcomes and placement, and other measures they deem appropriate. Accountability measures may include receipt of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, placement in a postsecondary educational institution, training, and employment. All funded programs shall be required to annually submit demographic and other student-level outcome information to the department or the chancellor’s office, as appropriate.

(c) The department, in conjunction with the chancellor’s office, and as a part of the report and recommendations required pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 84830, shall coordinate and issue both of the following:

(1) Recommendations and fee policy guidelines to be used by school districts and community college districts regarding the authority to charge fees for courses offered pursuant to Section 84830. With respect to these recommendations and guidelines, it is the intent of the Legislature that:

(A) Registration and course fees should be equivalent across all programs.

(B) Fees should not generate income beyond the cost of providing the courses.

(C) Fees should not create a barrier to student access to adult education programs.

(2) Recommendations and policy guidelines regarding the use of a single student identifier to be used by school districts and community college districts for purposes of developing a comprehensive accountability system pursuant to the requirements of Section 84830.

(d) As used in this section, “chancellor’s office” means the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges.

 

 

SEC. 2. Section 78402 is added to the Education Code, to read:

78402. (a) The chancellor’s office, in conjunction with the department, shall coordinate and issue assessment policy guidelines regarding assessments to be used by school districts and community college districts for purposes of placement in adult education courses offered pursuant to Section 84830 and paragraphs (2) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 84757.

(b) The department and the chancellor’s office, as a part of the report and recommendations required pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 84830, shall jointly develop and issue policy recommendations to the Legislature regarding a comprehensive accountability system for adult education courses offered pursuant to Section 84830 and paragraphs (2) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 84757. The department and the chancellor’s office shall develop recommendations for all adult education-funded providers for assessment, evaluation, and data collection to document participant outcomes and placement, and other performance measures they deem appropriate. Accountability measures may include receipt of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, placement in a postsecondary educational institution, training, and employment. All funded programs shall be required to annually submit demographic and other student-level outcome information to the department or the chancellor’s office, as appropriate.

(c) The chancellor’s office, in conjunction with the department, and as a part of the report and recommendations required pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 84830, shall coordinate and issue both of the following:

(1) Recommendations and fee policy guidelines to be used by school districts and community college districts regarding the authority to charge fees for courses offered pursuant to Section 84830. With respect to these recommendations and guidelines, it is the intent of the Legislature that:

(A) Registration and course fees should be equivalent across all programs.

(B) Fees should not generate income beyond the cost of providing the courses.

(C) Fees should not create a barrier to student access to adult education programs.

(2) Recommendations and policy guidelines regarding the use of a single student identifier to be used by school districts and community college districts for purposes of developing a comprehensive accountability system pursuant to the requirements of Section 84830.

(d) As used in this section, “department” means the State Department of Education.

 

 

 

SEC. 3. Section 84757.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:

84757.5. (a) The chancellor’s office, in conjunction with the department, shall annually report on the number and types of courses being taught and the number of students being served with funding provided to the regional consortia established pursuant to Section 84830. The chancellor’s office shall annually report on the number and types of noncredit courses being taught and the number of students being served with funding provided to the community colleges for the courses offered pursuant to Section 84757.

(b) The chancellor’s office shall identify any deficits in course offerings based upon levels, types, and needs for adult education programs identified in the consortia plans submitted as required under subdivision (c) of Section 84830.

SEC. 4. The Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges shall meet to review their current requirements for noncredit adult education and adult education instructors, and shall develop and submit recommendations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature for modifying or establishing reciprocity standards for instructors of adult education courses by July 1, 2015.

SEC. 5. It is the intent of the Legislature to evaluate the guidelines for the accountability system established pursuant to Sections 52524 and 78402 of the Education Code and to consider allocating base adult education funds and noncredit adult education funds to providers on the basis of a combination of identified needs, enrollment, and outcomes in courses offered pursuant to Section 84830 and paragraphs (2) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 84757 of the Education Code.