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.

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