Dear Colleague,
With the legislative session in full swing in Sacramento, Golden State
legislators are entertaining AB 1922, a bill mandating that climate
change education be a “coursework requirement for students in grades 1
through 6, and a graduation requirement for students in grades 7 through
12, starting 2025.” As Sydney Johnson writes,
Schools are encouraged to teach environmental literacy, which by definition includes climate change, according to state law.
The Education Code does not mandate that schools teach it, however. But
because climate change is in the state standards, and California’s
state science test is aligned to those standards, climate change could
appear on the statewide science assessment.
To emphasize the importance of these standards and the impact of
climate change more broadly, many districts have passed resolutions and
policies to commit to environmental education. Some have even included
specific actions, such as reducing carbon emissions on campus.
To learn more, go here and here.
As we mentioned last month, there is an election in California on March 3rd.
The issue of most interest to many teachers is Prop. 13, the School and
College Facilities Bond. As John Fensterwald writes in EdSource,
The state has traditionally shared the cost of construction with
school districts, community colleges and universities. Since 2002,
voters have approved four bond measures totaling $45 billion, with 80
percent allocated to K-12. The last bond, in 2016, was for $7 billion
strictly for K-12. All the money from that bond has been allocated
or committed to districts that have applied.
School districts and community colleges also pass bonds for school
construction and repairs not covered by state aid. Local bonds require
55 percent of voter approval to pass. State bonds like Prop. 13 require a
simple majority of voters statewide.
However, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) disagrees and explains,
Prop. 13 (2020) is a huge $15 billion statewide school bond chock
full of hidden traps for taxpayers. First, it reflects typical credit
card math by Sacramento politicians because it would borrow $15 billion
from Wall Street and then make taxpayers pay it back plus 80% in total
interest costs. That’s an additional $12 billion we’ll be forced to pay,
bringing the entire bill to $27 billion.
While no one disputes the need for adequate school facilities, the
problem is that the state’s education establishment has failed to show
that it uses existing school facility bond money effectively. California
voters already have approved big school bonds, including a recent 2016
$7 billion measure, only to see much of those funds squandered.
(Remember the infamous Belmont High School scandal when LAUSD wasted hundreds of millions building the nation’s most expensive high school on top of a toxic waste site?)
To learn more, the ballot guide can be accessed here. Fensterwald’s take is here. HJTA president Jon Coupal’s rebuttal can be found here.
Whatever your take on Prop.13, the state is spending a lot on education
at this time. The California Department of Education projects total
state expenditures for 2019–20 from all sources to be a record $214.8 billion.
The problem in many school districts is the inability to live within a
budget. In Los Angeles, for example, after the six-day teacher strike in
January 2019, the district and union settled on a contract that many
questioned. Now, a year later, LAUSD officials admit to spending $18,788
per student. But in a mid-January interview with EdSource, school superintendent Austin Beutner indicated that the district receives just $16,402 from the state to educate each child.
Beutner went on to explain that LAUSD would have to borrow from future
reserves to cover the hefty shortfall. Knowing that kicking the can down
the road is a stopgap, he added that “we have to go to the Legislature
and get more funding.” Which means, of course, “We need to raise taxes.”
UTLA leader Alex Caputo-Pearl sloughs off the problem by saying he is
skeptical about “doomsday predictions.” He claims that California is 43rd in the U.S. in per-pupil spending. Yet, according to the latest available data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the state actually ranks 21st in state education spending. The same report also informs us that L.A. is ranked 7th in per-pupil spending of the nation’s 25 largest school districts (and 11th of the top 50), coming in ahead of Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Dallas, et al.
Speaking of unions, the Buckeye Institute has announced it is filing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine.
Professor Jonathan Reisman, an economics professor at the school, was
previously a member of the Associated Faculties of the University of
Maine, but decided to leave the union over political disagreements with
its state and national affiliates – the Maine Education Association and
the National Education Association. Now, Dr. Reisman is trying to free
himself from compelled union representation. Should he succeed, many
others will then be sure to follow.
The unions traditionally have complained that they are forced to
represent all workers during collective bargaining and ridiculed any
non-payer as a “free rider.” But in reality, it is the unions that are
the problem. No law forces the responsibility of exclusive
representation on the unions – in fact, the unions themselves demand it.
As Mike Antonucci explains, “The very first thing any new union wants
is exclusivity,” whereby “no other unions are allowed to negotiate on
behalf of people in the bargaining unit. Unit members cannot hire their
own agent, nor can they represent themselves.”
To learn more about the Reisman case, go here and here. To read Antonucci’s post on monopoly bargaining, go here.
School choice was a prominent part of President Trump’s State of the
Union talk a couple of weeks ago. He specifically gave a shout-out to
Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunities Act.
This legislation would provide tax credits to individuals and
businesses that make contributions to scholarship funds that could be
used to defray tuition costs at private schools, for career and
technical education, etc. Trump added that no parent should be forced to
send their kid to a failing government school. The teachers unions were
not pleased, to say the least. Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association fumed,
Tonight, Donald Trump once again put the agenda of Betsy DeVos, the
least qualified Secretary of Education in U.S. history, front and center
in his State of the Union by renewing his push to divert scarce funding
from the public schools that 90 percent of students attend into private
school voucher programs.
Those who are school choice advocates have mixed opinions on the bill. Pacific Research Institute scholar Lance Izumi
likes the proposal, noting it would “not be a top-down federal program,
but would allow states to decide whether to participate and how to
select eligible students, education providers and allowable education
expenses.” Other prominent choicers, like the American Federation of Children, are also positively disposed to the plan.
However, others are concerned with the fact that Washington would be
running the show. The Heritage Foundation maintains that the program “could invite further regulations,
impede further tax overhauls and was out of the federal government’s
jurisdiction.” The Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey said that while the
proposal sought to “skirt the control problem” by making it optional, it
still invited federal encroachment.
Also, on choice, during National School Choice Week many groups used the opportunity to screen Miss Virginia.
The film documents the story of Virginia Walden Ford, the force behind
the Washington, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a voucher program
that lets low-income parents use public funding to send their children
to private schools.
Set in 2003, the movie portrays Virginia as a devoted single mom raising
her 15-year-old son, James, in a low-income Washington neighborhood.
He’s a bright kid, but a fish out of water in a tough school. James
ditches class regularly and even flirts with becoming a gangbanger. In
one heartrending scene, after he reluctantly joins local hoods in
assaulting an intelligent student, he is threatened with expulsion.
Desperate, Virginia enrolls James in a private school, but the $7,000
annual tuition becomes an even bigger problem, so she becomes a maid,
cleaning the office of a congresswoman.
The film’s turning point, however, occurs when Virginia discovers that
her son’s expensive private school educates children at half the cost
per pupil of the money spent by Washington’s public school system.
To read more about the film, go here and here.
And finally, as you well know, data and solid information are very
useful in scoring political points and making cases for various causes.
To that end, CTEN has a fact sheet on our website which has been updated
– all with original sources. To see it, go here.
If you have information that counters what’s there or would like to see something added, please let us know.
As always, thanks for your continuing interest and support.
Sincerely,
Larry Sand
CTEN President
