What do you think about public education in our country, in California, and in the Bay Area? Is it better than we think? If you ask someone in Berkeley, you'd likely get a different answer than if you asked someone in Oakland. Since 2008, Adult Education has been threatened, and it seems to be getting worse. The links to stories below are about a historic part of our educational system. Formerly known as "night school", Adult Education is nearly as old as our State. For over 150 years, adult schools have supported social mobility and second and third chances for students. The demise of adult education will further marginalize those who have less, increasing social divisions and eventually hurting those privileged few who rely on a skilled workforce.
Recent article about Adult Ed in the Sacramento Bee
From the Bay Citizen
And from California Watch
and more below...
Recent article about Adult Ed in the Sacramento Bee
From the Bay Citizen
And from California Watch
and more below...
The continuing state budget crisis combined with increased flexibility in how school districts use funds previously earmarked for specific problems has had a dramatic impact on adult education programs in California. See the full EdSource report here
Adult education’s existential crisis. This is the second of a two-part series on adult education in California. Click here to read part 1.
From our legislative advocate in Sacramento, Dawn Koepke, Wed. June 13:
As
you may be hearing, Legislative Democrats in both houses have developed
and put forth a budget plan to be voted upon Friday in time for the
Constitutional deadline. Importantly, the Legislature has opted to
reject the Governor’s Weighted Student Formula (WSF) for the foreseeable
future, but fails thus far to address the decimation imposed on adult
education under categorical flexibility. The Legislative proposal
currently contains the following key elements:
- Overall
2012-13 Funding Level. Provides a Proposition 98 minimum guarantee of
approximately $53.6 billion for 2012-13. This is roughly $1 billion
above the amount provided under the Governor's January proposal.
Although revenues are down in 2012-13, the year-to-year change in
revenues has increased and this results in a higher maintenance factor
payment. This funding level also assumes passage of the Governor's tax
initiative.
- Maintains
2011-12 Spending Level. Maintains the Governor's proposed current year
level of spending for schools ($47.8 billion). This provides schools
with $900 million above the revised minimum guarantee for 2011-12, which
has fallen mostly due to a decline in anticipated state revenue. The
budget repurposes this over appropriation to schools by designating $450
million as a prepayment of 2012-13 QEIA settlement obligations and
approximately $230 million as prepayment for 2013-14 QEIA settlement
obligations. Swaps the remaining ongoing General Fund dollars with
one-time funds. These adjustments do not change funding levels for K-14
education in the current year but instead reclassify the funds.
- New
Trigger Cuts if Governor’s Tax Initiative Fails. Proposes a trigger
reduction of approximately $5.5 billion for K-14 education in the event
the Governor’s initiative does not pass. This reduction comes in part
from a reduction in the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee due to lower
state revenues ($2.9 billion). The remaining would result from a shift
of General Obligation Bond Debt Service and the Early Start program
(currently funded under the Department of Developmental Services) into
Proposition 98 requiring programmatic savings to accommodate the
shift. To accommodate the $5.5 billion reduction, the budget adopts
the Governor's approach to rescind deferral buy-downs ($2.3 billion).
The remaining reduction would be achieved through programmatic cuts to
K-14 education. In order to achieve savings, the budget includes trailer
bill language to authorize K-12 schools to reduce the school year by a
total of 15 days in 2012-13 and 2013-14. This would be in addition to
the current flexibility districts have to reduce the school year by five
days.
- Does
not initiate the Governor's weighted pupil formula proposal and
maintains categorical and general purpose funding allocations per
existing law (aka – flexibility remains intact).
- Budget
bill language requires CDE to revise the RFA for the WIA Title II Adult
Education funds to incorporate core federal performance metrics.
We’re
continuing to work on the flexibility issue. As we understand things
currently, the Legislature is in a bit of a bind relative to addressing
flexibility for adult education and possibly others in the short term.
I’m told that because the Legislature opted not to move the WSF forward
at this time, the Administration/Finance is pushing for more flexibility
by moving some of the currently un-flexed categoricals in to flex as a
consolation prize of sorts for not giving in on the WSF. The
Legislature is not inclined to do this in the least and this ultimately
makes it even more difficult to address flex for adult education. The
Legislature is concerned that because the Administration is pushing for
greater/increased flexibility and is upset about the demise of the WSF
this year, they may be inclined to veto the budget trailer bill if it
takes any funding out of flexibility for adult education thereby
compromising the ability for the Legislature to put a balanced budget in
place. The Administration/Finance has threatened similar tactics on
other policy fronts, namely Health and Human Services.
So where does this leave us?
Frankly,
in a precarious position. We will be continuing to push for addressing
flexibility in the current budget package and through the rest of the
session. In this regard, another possible opportunity may be on the
horizon – albeit not exactly in the form of eliminating or mitigating
the issues associated with flexibility (at least not directly and
immediately). Talks are currently taking place to gut and amend AB 18
(Brownley) to provide for a process to develop educational reforms that
would get to the Governor’s goals. Staff tells me language is currently
being developed that would put in a number of goals and factors to be
considered and perhaps an advisory body convened to provide the reform
recommendations to the Legislature to implement in the next few years.
While flexibility would be a part of the reform expectations, staff
indicates that they support and understand the need for programs like
adult education to be outside flexibility. I have shared with staff the
need to explicitly exclude adult education from any discussion about
flexibility and have also pushed for any advisory committee established
in the bill to include a member representing adult education. Nothing
has been agreed to as of yet, but the wheels are in motion. Presuming
Assemblywoman Brownley does opt to move in this direction with the bill,
she would have to remove (“gut”) the current language that provides for
reform and excludes adult education from the block grant/flexed
approach. It is my expectation based on conversations with her and
staff that further work along these lines will continue to keep adult
education separate. As always, the proof will be in the pudding – we
shall remain vigilant. In order for her to move the bill – in any form –
she will need to do so by the end of June in time for the policy
committee deadline. Stay tuned…
Whether
or not the tide shifts and we are able to address flexibility in this
budget cycle, we are continuing to fight the fight. At the end of the
day, our needs do not have to be addressed in the context of the budget
debate/negotiations. It certainly would be easier for the Legislature
and us, but that isn’t the only route. As such, we’re already
contemplating options for the final weeks of this session – albeit, much
more difficult to achieve success.
From
my perspective, the most important thing the field and our supporters
can do at this point is to keep pushing, screaming and fighting. I can
only imagine how frustrated and overwhelmed everyone is at this point,
but we must remember that this battle isn’t a sprint to the finish –
it’s a marathon. As such, it is critical that we keep the pressure on
the Governor, Legislature and our local school boards. The moment we
stop screaming and fighting is the moment when the battle is truly lost
and it appears to these folks that adult education isn’t needed. I
implore you all to keep fighting – it isn’t over and we’re still
fighting in Sacramento. We need your voices to back us in the fight.
Strength in numbers and longevity!
Dawn Koepke
Partner
McHugh, Koepke & Associates
1121 L Street, Suite 103
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 930-0580 Fax
