Harold Meyerson: Prop. 13 opened state's road to insolvency
ShareThis
By Harold Meyerson
Published: Friday, May. 29, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 15A
To understand why the woes of California's economy threaten the nation's economy, we must understand the state's road to insolvency. The Age of Reagan did not commence with the Great Communicator's inauguration in 1981. For its real beginning, we need to go back to June 1978, when Californians went to the polls and enacted Proposition 13.
By passing Howard Jarvis' malign initiative, California voters reduced the Golden State to baser metal. Under Republican Gov. Earl Warren and Democratic Gov. Pat Brown, California epitomized the postwar American dream. Its public schools, from kindergarten through Berkeley and UCLA, were the nation's finest; its roads and aqueducts the most efficient at moving cars and water – the state's lifeblood – to their destinations. All this was funded by some of the nation's highest taxes, which fell in good measure on the state's flourishing banks and corporations.
Amid the inflation of the late 1970s, however, the California model began to crumple. As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue soared – but the parsimonious Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, neither spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians grumped to the polls and passed Proposition 13, which rolled back and limited property taxes – effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue. Ranked fifth among the states in per-pupil spending during the 1950s and '60s, California sank to Mississippi-like levels – the mid-40s in rank – by the 1990s.
Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded more by taxes on personal income and sales. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily reduced. In the current recession, with state unemployment at 11 percent, tax revenue has fallen off a cliff.
But the problem with Proposition 13 wasn't merely that it reduced revenue. It also made it very difficult to increase revenue.
Raising taxes now requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, though in 47 other states, a simple majority suffices. California has become overwhelmingly Democratic in the past two decades, but Republicans have managed to retain footholds – representing just over one-third of the districts – in both houses of the Legislature.
The conservative backlash of 1978 also swept into the Legislature a proto-Reaganistic generation of Republicans, later dubbed "the Cavemen." Compared with today's GOP state legislators, though, the Cavemen look like Diderot's Encyclopedists. The current Republican crop has refused in good times as well as bad to raise business or other taxes. (Increasing the tobacco tax, for instance, has failed each of the past 14 times it has come up for a vote.)
Abetted by little local Limbaughs who inflame Republican brains, they protest that the state already has the nation's highest taxes. In fact, California ranks 18th among the states in percentage of personal income paid to state government, and its presumably beleaguered wealthiest 1 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, pay just 7.4 percent of their income to the state while the poorest pay 10.2 percent.
But the myth of soak-the-rich high taxation persists among Republicans – so much so that the GOP front-runner to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger in next year's gubernatorial election, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, is calling for cuts in business tax rates, even though the state is staring at a $24.3 billion deficit that it somehow has to close. In short order, unless the federal government steps in with a bridge loan, the state will throw 940,000 poor children off its health-care rolls and lay off tens of thousands of teachers.
Because California is so much larger than any other state, and its unemployment rate is among the nation's highest, the collapse of its capacity to spend will counteract some of the effect of the federal stimulus and retard the nation's recovery – much as its aerospace slump retarded the recovery of the mid-1990s. The Obama administration ignores California's plight at its own – and the nation's – peril.
The nation's banks are stuck with so much bad paper from California mortgages gone awry that a huge contraction in state spending would make their assets even more toxic. In the short term, the only way to avoid a further downturn may be a federal loan to the state.
A more permanent, homegrown solution to California's woes (and it may take a state constitutional convention to get it) would require the state to eliminate the two-thirds threshold for enacting taxes, to repeal Proposition 13's freeze on the value of commercial properties (some of which are still assessed at their 1978 levels) and to end the process of ballot-box budgeting through the initiative process, which is now more dominated by monied interests than the Legislature ever was.
In Washington, the Age of Reagan may have shuddered to an inglorious end, but we also need action from state governments – and Sacramento in particular – to move us toward a more sustainable economic future.
Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of American Prospect and the L.A. Weekly. This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The enduring achievement gap
Veteran reporter Debra Viadero has written more than 1,400 stories for Education Week and most of them have been about research.
Getting at the Causes for NAEP Achievement Gaps
In his take on the results released earlier this week from the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests in reading and mathematics, the NYT's Sam Dillon emphasizes the fact that the test-score gaps separating poor and minority students from their higher-achieving white and better-off counterparts have not budged over the last four to five years.
Now a new report from the Educational Testing Service explores some of the many possible reasons why. Parsing the Achievement Gap II is a follow-up to a 2003 study that lays out the racial and ethnic fault lines for 14 different indicators that have been linked to academic achievement. Its basic conclusion: While the nation has made some progress in narrowing disparities among students of different racial, ethnic, and income groups, not much has changed, for the most part, since 2003.
I know. That may not exactly be news.
But the new report, which expands the original number of indicators to 16, includes some illuminating statistics. Did you know, for instance, that in 2007 more than half of African-American 8th graders, compared with a fifth of white 8th graders, had a teacher who left before the end of the school year? Among students poor enough to qualify for federal free-lunch programs, two-thirds had teachers who failed to finish out that year.
That's sobering. My two children attend, or graduated from, middle-class public high schools. In all their years of schooling, I can only recall two instances in which one of their teachers failed to make it to the finish line—one because of a terminal illness and another due to maternity leave.
If you couple those statistics with the disproportionately high mobility rates that the report documents among poor and minority families, it adds up to a lot of disrupted schooling.
One bright spot the report notes, however, is that increasing numbers of students of all racial, ethnic, and income groups are taking on more advanced coursework in high school. (For an interesting analysis on how that trend has contributed—or not contributed—to longtern NAEP results see my colleague Sean Cavanagh's post in the Curriculum Matters blog.) Yet, by the same token, black students remain badly underrepresented among those students who go on to take Advanced Placement exams.
Debra Viadero
Getting at the Causes for NAEP Achievement Gaps
In his take on the results released earlier this week from the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests in reading and mathematics, the NYT's Sam Dillon emphasizes the fact that the test-score gaps separating poor and minority students from their higher-achieving white and better-off counterparts have not budged over the last four to five years.
Now a new report from the Educational Testing Service explores some of the many possible reasons why. Parsing the Achievement Gap II is a follow-up to a 2003 study that lays out the racial and ethnic fault lines for 14 different indicators that have been linked to academic achievement. Its basic conclusion: While the nation has made some progress in narrowing disparities among students of different racial, ethnic, and income groups, not much has changed, for the most part, since 2003.
I know. That may not exactly be news.
But the new report, which expands the original number of indicators to 16, includes some illuminating statistics. Did you know, for instance, that in 2007 more than half of African-American 8th graders, compared with a fifth of white 8th graders, had a teacher who left before the end of the school year? Among students poor enough to qualify for federal free-lunch programs, two-thirds had teachers who failed to finish out that year.
That's sobering. My two children attend, or graduated from, middle-class public high schools. In all their years of schooling, I can only recall two instances in which one of their teachers failed to make it to the finish line—one because of a terminal illness and another due to maternity leave.
If you couple those statistics with the disproportionately high mobility rates that the report documents among poor and minority families, it adds up to a lot of disrupted schooling.
One bright spot the report notes, however, is that increasing numbers of students of all racial, ethnic, and income groups are taking on more advanced coursework in high school. (For an interesting analysis on how that trend has contributed—or not contributed—to longtern NAEP results see my colleague Sean Cavanagh's post in the Curriculum Matters blog.) Yet, by the same token, black students remain badly underrepresented among those students who go on to take Advanced Placement exams.
Debra Viadero
Shutting Detroit Down
They're Shuttin' Detroit Down
Check out this new video: here http://heavens-gates.com/usworkers/indexB.html
You will need to wait for the video to load. And, you may need to click through to the alternative site.
It is worth it.
Check out this new video: here http://heavens-gates.com/usworkers/indexB.html
You will need to wait for the video to load. And, you may need to click through to the alternative site.
It is worth it.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Direction of Anger?
Direction of anger?
I am watching the Joint Budget Committee of the California Assembly and Senate seeking to cut the California budget in response to the national and economic economic crisis. The cuts proposed by the Governor’s office and the response of the Legislative Analysts Office are extreme. For example the U.C. and the CSU would lose $1.4 this year and 583 million next year. In health care the state would eliminate care for Alzheimer’s patients, eliminate AIDS testing,
Cal Works, and health insurance for over 900,000 children. These are only the beginning.
Question, how do we try to direct the anger? Is the appropriate anger aimed at the Legislature, the voters, the non voters, the bureaucracy?
Reading the blogs you would think that teachers, police, firemen and state employees caused the crisis.
California's k-12 education system is in large part in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. Legislators only have a 23% support in the public. When comparisons include cost of living, California ranks 47th out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. Our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
California, and most other states, have a budget crisis as a result of the national economic crisis – significantly a banking crisis. The robber barons of finance capital have stolen the money, they have looted the treasury and our pensions and now they want to return to business as usual without any significant reform of the economic system. Just give them more tax payer money to bail out the banks.
The severity of the national and international economic collapse has created budget shortfalls for state and local governments. Economist Dean Baker, says "Since many states are required by their charters or constitutions to balance their budgets, states will end up using federal stimulus dollars to offset these shortfalls." It currently looks as if much of the stimulus package will be used to back fill state budget shortages which sharply limits the potential success of the stimulus.
School budget cuts
I may have too simply of a response here, but if so, I am confident readers will explain it to me.
We know that we have a major state budget crisis and a major school funding crisis. That is explored in detail on prior posts. What should be done?
I think the best response is to cut the number of school days by 7-10 days as the Legislative Analyst’s office describes. The voters, the taxpayers, and the legislature has decided to fund less education.
Such a reduction would leave in place the many valuable programs that would otherwise be eliminated. With over 36 years of teaching experience I am confident that number of days of instruction is not the key variable, it is the quality of the relationships between teachers and students. Certainly if a district chooses to cut the days of instruction, they should make parallel reductions in the administrative and support services. Less than 54% of school budgets actually get into the classroom. The other 46% is spent on auxiliary items, special education and administration. These too should be reduced in a comparable manner.
I also want to acknowledge the Sacramento Bee for having printed in their Forum and earlier post from Choosing Democracy on the May 19 elections.
We know that we have a major state budget crisis and a major school funding crisis. That is explored in detail on prior posts. What should be done?
I think the best response is to cut the number of school days by 7-10 days as the Legislative Analyst’s office describes. The voters, the taxpayers, and the legislature has decided to fund less education.
Such a reduction would leave in place the many valuable programs that would otherwise be eliminated. With over 36 years of teaching experience I am confident that number of days of instruction is not the key variable, it is the quality of the relationships between teachers and students. Certainly if a district chooses to cut the days of instruction, they should make parallel reductions in the administrative and support services. Less than 54% of school budgets actually get into the classroom. The other 46% is spent on auxiliary items, special education and administration. These too should be reduced in a comparable manner.
I also want to acknowledge the Sacramento Bee for having printed in their Forum and earlier post from Choosing Democracy on the May 19 elections.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Here is $10 million for the budget crisis
May 21,2009
The budget reform proposals failed and the legislature has the lowest approval ratings in modern history. Perhaps it is time to listen.
There is $10 million per year in the CSU budget and about the same in the U.C. budget that could be cut and this would improve teacher preparation.
In 2006 the legislature and CTC imposed an expensive, redundant accountability system TPA/PACT on teacher preparation – one the state cannot afford in its current budget crisis. I am confident that only a few legislators were even aware that they were creating this accountability fraud. It is a gross injustice to add funding for performance assessment of future teachers into the budget when our schools are having to increase class sizes, lay off teachers, reduce career technical education, cancel transportation, and delay long needed school reforms.
Now that the legislature faces cutting class sizes in k-12, lay off teachers, and violate contracts, cutting health care for children, I urge you to look examine this sweetheart deal for a few tenured profs.
There is no evidence that TPA/PACT are valid measures of good teaching. To the contrary, our experience tells us that one-time all-or-nothing tests like the TPA/PACT are among the poorest possible ways to predict the likelihood that a test-taker will be an excellent California teacher. The implementation of TPA assessment was initially contingent upon state funding. But SB 1209 in 2006 removed the funding requirement and required implementation of the TPA throughout the CSU effective July 1, 2008, imposing a new low quality accountability system on teacher preparation programs in addition to the performance assessments currently in place, without providing the funding needed to pay for the new program. The solution is obvious. Rescind this provision of SB 1209.
In times of crisis we should fund important things. This $10 million should be cut from the CSU budget and used for other vital, impacted interests.
For a detailed description of the problems of PACT and TPA see; http://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/
I remain available to discuss the misguided financing of PACT and TPA with your office. I encourage you to use your leadership position to act responsibly in this budget crisis.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Professor of Education Emeritus
The budget reform proposals failed and the legislature has the lowest approval ratings in modern history. Perhaps it is time to listen.
There is $10 million per year in the CSU budget and about the same in the U.C. budget that could be cut and this would improve teacher preparation.
In 2006 the legislature and CTC imposed an expensive, redundant accountability system TPA/PACT on teacher preparation – one the state cannot afford in its current budget crisis. I am confident that only a few legislators were even aware that they were creating this accountability fraud. It is a gross injustice to add funding for performance assessment of future teachers into the budget when our schools are having to increase class sizes, lay off teachers, reduce career technical education, cancel transportation, and delay long needed school reforms.
Now that the legislature faces cutting class sizes in k-12, lay off teachers, and violate contracts, cutting health care for children, I urge you to look examine this sweetheart deal for a few tenured profs.
There is no evidence that TPA/PACT are valid measures of good teaching. To the contrary, our experience tells us that one-time all-or-nothing tests like the TPA/PACT are among the poorest possible ways to predict the likelihood that a test-taker will be an excellent California teacher. The implementation of TPA assessment was initially contingent upon state funding. But SB 1209 in 2006 removed the funding requirement and required implementation of the TPA throughout the CSU effective July 1, 2008, imposing a new low quality accountability system on teacher preparation programs in addition to the performance assessments currently in place, without providing the funding needed to pay for the new program. The solution is obvious. Rescind this provision of SB 1209.
In times of crisis we should fund important things. This $10 million should be cut from the CSU budget and used for other vital, impacted interests.
For a detailed description of the problems of PACT and TPA see; http://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/
I remain available to discuss the misguided financing of PACT and TPA with your office. I encourage you to use your leadership position to act responsibly in this budget crisis.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Professor of Education Emeritus
The Great Recession to last years: Krugman
Krugman
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- The United States may emerge from recession as early as this summer, though further job losses mean a "depressed economy" could last as long as five years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said Tuesday.
"I think it's quite possible that industrial production in the United States and perhaps in the world as a whole will bottom out sometime in the next few months, that GDP growth in the United States will be positive in the second half of the year and maybe a little bit later than that in Europe," Krugman told a global financial conference in Seoul.
Krugman said that he would not be surprised if the U.S. recession, which began in December 2007, ended in August or September this year. But job losses were likely to continue into 2011, meaning "the period of a depressed economy" could last until 2013 or 2014, he said.
Krugman, who teaches at Princeton University, won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences last year for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect international trade patterns. He also writes columns for The New York Times.
The U.S. economy, the world's largest, contracted a worse-than-expected 6.1 percent on an annualized basis in the first quarter. Americans increased purchases of cars, furniture and appliances, but businesses cut back spending and exports had their biggest drop in 40 years. The U.S. unemployment rate hit 8.9 percent in April and many economists expect it to reach 10 percent by year's end.
Krugman said that while economic indicators from around the world are improving, they suggest that the pace of economic decline has only slowed.
"I share the optimism that the worst of this may be over," he said, also noting a stabilization in financial markets. "What's really hard, however, is to say when does this go beyond stabilization to an actual recovery."
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- The United States may emerge from recession as early as this summer, though further job losses mean a "depressed economy" could last as long as five years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said Tuesday.
"I think it's quite possible that industrial production in the United States and perhaps in the world as a whole will bottom out sometime in the next few months, that GDP growth in the United States will be positive in the second half of the year and maybe a little bit later than that in Europe," Krugman told a global financial conference in Seoul.
Krugman said that he would not be surprised if the U.S. recession, which began in December 2007, ended in August or September this year. But job losses were likely to continue into 2011, meaning "the period of a depressed economy" could last until 2013 or 2014, he said.
Krugman, who teaches at Princeton University, won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences last year for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect international trade patterns. He also writes columns for The New York Times.
The U.S. economy, the world's largest, contracted a worse-than-expected 6.1 percent on an annualized basis in the first quarter. Americans increased purchases of cars, furniture and appliances, but businesses cut back spending and exports had their biggest drop in 40 years. The U.S. unemployment rate hit 8.9 percent in April and many economists expect it to reach 10 percent by year's end.
Krugman said that while economic indicators from around the world are improving, they suggest that the pace of economic decline has only slowed.
"I share the optimism that the worst of this may be over," he said, also noting a stabilization in financial markets. "What's really hard, however, is to say when does this go beyond stabilization to an actual recovery."
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The meaning of the special election: Marty Hittelman
The meaning of the special election
by Marty Hittelman
The May 19 Special Election has come and gone, but the results may not be easy to interpret. For one thing, each political persuasion (including mine) can find something in the results to validate their own beliefs. The anti-tax ideologues didn't even wait for the results of the May 19 special election to begin spinning. According to them, the defeat of Propositions 1A through 1E was due to the California electorate’s enduring anti-tax feelings.
There is plenty of evidence to dispute such a simplistic conclusion. The bulk of the "No" campaign came from public sector unions and their community allies determined to prevent further cuts to California's vital social services—the government programs that help make our society livable.
Indeed, traditional allies and adversaries were jumbled together on both sides, and a confused electorate is one that tends to vote “no.”
Polling shows that the hardcore anti-tax vote is pretty much constant, representing about 20% of the electorate. Clearly this was not sufficient to defeat the initiatives.
Another factor in assessing the election is that most voters did not bother to vote. While typical of a special election turnout, this phenomenon suggests voters did not believe the ballot measures represented a real solution to the problems of closing the state’s structural budget gap and funding essential public services.
We can reasonably surmise these proposals were defeated for a variety of reasons. But the clearest lesson should be that the people of California did not support a state budget process that occurred behind closed doors, involving only the governor and the legislative leadership, who dumped a half-baked mess of virtually incomprehensible ideas on the voters and said, here, you solve it. Proposition 1A, in particular, was so convoluted that even its advocates couldn't explain it clearly.
If an open, democratic budget process had occurred, 1A and the other propositions never would have made it to the ballot, because their tortuous logic and flaws would have been made all too apparent.
Now the propositions have been defeated and the ever-shrinking Republican legislative minority still possesses just above one third of the votes, leaving them in the same position that forced the special election: the driver’s seat. California’s archaic (from 1934) and nearly unique (just two other states) constitutional requirement for a two-thirds legislative vote for passing the state budget means the legislative Republicans are a classic example of “tyranny of the minority.”
Throughout the campaign the governor maintained, with typical disregard for facts, that these measures would “fix the state budget.” They were never going to. The Democratic Legislative leaders had a more plausible, but equally cynical argument: you had to vote for this package, because there was “no alternative,” due to Republican ideological unity and intransigence.
In the coming days we will see if the Republicans can take their responsibility to govern seriously, or stay stuck in the same reverse gear that brought them massive defeat in the last election and a shrinking share of California’s electorate. If they can’t change, Assembly and Senate Democrats should take a small portion of their political war chests and go out to the Legislative districts that have changing demographics. Enough of these districts now exist that a well-organized voter registration and election campaign leading to the November 2010 election could force the hard line anti-taxers below the magic one-third threshold.
Another alternative: go directly to the ballot to ask the people of California to understand what nearly every other state's citizens do: that our Legislature should practice democracy by majority rule.
The past few decades have seen an unfortunate redistribution of this country's wealth upward. The richest one percent own more than one third of our combined wealth. Recent polls show that large majorities support increasing taxes on the rich and closing corporate tax loopholes to keep California livable. This should give courage to our political leaders. But expediency is not why the governor and Legislature should focus on progressive taxes to solve the budget problem; rather, they should do it because it is their job to clearly explain the links between taxes and the important services they fund, and because it is the right thing to do.
Hittleman is the President of the California Federation of Teachers. Not to be confused with the CTA.
by Marty Hittelman
The May 19 Special Election has come and gone, but the results may not be easy to interpret. For one thing, each political persuasion (including mine) can find something in the results to validate their own beliefs. The anti-tax ideologues didn't even wait for the results of the May 19 special election to begin spinning. According to them, the defeat of Propositions 1A through 1E was due to the California electorate’s enduring anti-tax feelings.
There is plenty of evidence to dispute such a simplistic conclusion. The bulk of the "No" campaign came from public sector unions and their community allies determined to prevent further cuts to California's vital social services—the government programs that help make our society livable.
Indeed, traditional allies and adversaries were jumbled together on both sides, and a confused electorate is one that tends to vote “no.”
Polling shows that the hardcore anti-tax vote is pretty much constant, representing about 20% of the electorate. Clearly this was not sufficient to defeat the initiatives.
Another factor in assessing the election is that most voters did not bother to vote. While typical of a special election turnout, this phenomenon suggests voters did not believe the ballot measures represented a real solution to the problems of closing the state’s structural budget gap and funding essential public services.
We can reasonably surmise these proposals were defeated for a variety of reasons. But the clearest lesson should be that the people of California did not support a state budget process that occurred behind closed doors, involving only the governor and the legislative leadership, who dumped a half-baked mess of virtually incomprehensible ideas on the voters and said, here, you solve it. Proposition 1A, in particular, was so convoluted that even its advocates couldn't explain it clearly.
If an open, democratic budget process had occurred, 1A and the other propositions never would have made it to the ballot, because their tortuous logic and flaws would have been made all too apparent.
Now the propositions have been defeated and the ever-shrinking Republican legislative minority still possesses just above one third of the votes, leaving them in the same position that forced the special election: the driver’s seat. California’s archaic (from 1934) and nearly unique (just two other states) constitutional requirement for a two-thirds legislative vote for passing the state budget means the legislative Republicans are a classic example of “tyranny of the minority.”
Throughout the campaign the governor maintained, with typical disregard for facts, that these measures would “fix the state budget.” They were never going to. The Democratic Legislative leaders had a more plausible, but equally cynical argument: you had to vote for this package, because there was “no alternative,” due to Republican ideological unity and intransigence.
In the coming days we will see if the Republicans can take their responsibility to govern seriously, or stay stuck in the same reverse gear that brought them massive defeat in the last election and a shrinking share of California’s electorate. If they can’t change, Assembly and Senate Democrats should take a small portion of their political war chests and go out to the Legislative districts that have changing demographics. Enough of these districts now exist that a well-organized voter registration and election campaign leading to the November 2010 election could force the hard line anti-taxers below the magic one-third threshold.
Another alternative: go directly to the ballot to ask the people of California to understand what nearly every other state's citizens do: that our Legislature should practice democracy by majority rule.
The past few decades have seen an unfortunate redistribution of this country's wealth upward. The richest one percent own more than one third of our combined wealth. Recent polls show that large majorities support increasing taxes on the rich and closing corporate tax loopholes to keep California livable. This should give courage to our political leaders. But expediency is not why the governor and Legislature should focus on progressive taxes to solve the budget problem; rather, they should do it because it is their job to clearly explain the links between taxes and the important services they fund, and because it is the right thing to do.
Hittleman is the President of the California Federation of Teachers. Not to be confused with the CTA.
There will be blood.
The party of NO won the election.
The budget reform proposals on the California ballot May 19,2009 failed and the legislature has the lowest approval ratings in modern history.
No more taxes.
No more cuts to my programs and benefits.
Now the budget crisis is bigger - $21.3 billion dollars.
California has long labored with the notorious 2/3 rule for passing budgets and raising taxes. The Republicans have used their 1/3 stranglehold – and the veto of the Governor- to stop resolving the budget crisis.
In this election several additional groups, notably SEIU, CFT, CFA, have demonstrated that they too can produce a stalemate, but , like the Republicans, they can not write a budget that will pass. Unless labor all pulls together- the Party of NO wins.
In 2003 the Party of No recalled Governor Gray Davis. There is no need for recall now. The state is $21.3 billion short for the next year. And, the minimum guarantee for schools has just been reduced. (see below)
According to Paul Krugman, the best case scenario is that the U.S. economy will emerge slowly from recession and continue in stagnation for several years. Under these conditions, state budgets will not recover. We will continue to have a fiscal crisis of the states.
The budget reform proposals on the California ballot May 19,2009 failed and the legislature has the lowest approval ratings in modern history.
No more taxes.
No more cuts to my programs and benefits.
Now the budget crisis is bigger - $21.3 billion dollars.
California has long labored with the notorious 2/3 rule for passing budgets and raising taxes. The Republicans have used their 1/3 stranglehold – and the veto of the Governor- to stop resolving the budget crisis.
In this election several additional groups, notably SEIU, CFT, CFA, have demonstrated that they too can produce a stalemate, but , like the Republicans, they can not write a budget that will pass. Unless labor all pulls together- the Party of NO wins.
In 2003 the Party of No recalled Governor Gray Davis. There is no need for recall now. The state is $21.3 billion short for the next year. And, the minimum guarantee for schools has just been reduced. (see below)
According to Paul Krugman, the best case scenario is that the U.S. economy will emerge slowly from recession and continue in stagnation for several years. Under these conditions, state budgets will not recover. We will continue to have a fiscal crisis of the states.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One
William Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.
On the current banking crisis. Video.
http://www.truthout.org/video/050609C
On the current banking crisis. Video.
http://www.truthout.org/video/050609C
More education budget cuts!
Before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released his May Revise on Thursday, school groups took solace in the fact that federal stimulus rules require states to maintain education funding at a 2005-06 level, so the state wouldn't be able to cut too much from their budget.
Jeannie Oropeza, an education budget manager in the Department of Finance, said that under California's existing funding application with the federal government, the state would only be able to cut about $1.8 billion from schools. That squares with the limit that education groups and Democratic aides said earlier this week was the most California could cut from schools.
But Oropeza said that the state made an accounting error in its application. She said the state mistakenly assigned $2 billion extra in school funding to 2005-06 that should have been applied to 2006-07. If true, then the state could actually cut as much as $6.2 billion from K-12 schools under the stimulus guidelines -- though only $5.4 billion under the state's constitutional guarantee in Proposition 98.
Oropeza said the Department of Finance has already spoken to the Obama administration and is confident that it can successfully resubmit its application next week with the revised numbers.
If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger travels to Washington this week, he'll have a few things to clear up with the Obama administration.
As a first matter, he'll want to meet with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for a federal waiver to cut $750 million from Medi-Cal. Schwarzenegger said in his May Revise last week that he wants more flexibility to restrict eligibility and benefits.
Schwarzenegger may also want to hand deliver the state's application for education stimulus funds. Schwarzenegger aides last week said the state assigned $2 billion to the wrong year in its current application. It now wants to resubmit its application so the state can make $5.4 billion in education cuts.
Information from the Sac Bee Capitol Alert
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Jeannie Oropeza, an education budget manager in the Department of Finance, said that under California's existing funding application with the federal government, the state would only be able to cut about $1.8 billion from schools. That squares with the limit that education groups and Democratic aides said earlier this week was the most California could cut from schools.
But Oropeza said that the state made an accounting error in its application. She said the state mistakenly assigned $2 billion extra in school funding to 2005-06 that should have been applied to 2006-07. If true, then the state could actually cut as much as $6.2 billion from K-12 schools under the stimulus guidelines -- though only $5.4 billion under the state's constitutional guarantee in Proposition 98.
Oropeza said the Department of Finance has already spoken to the Obama administration and is confident that it can successfully resubmit its application next week with the revised numbers.
If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger travels to Washington this week, he'll have a few things to clear up with the Obama administration.
As a first matter, he'll want to meet with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for a federal waiver to cut $750 million from Medi-Cal. Schwarzenegger said in his May Revise last week that he wants more flexibility to restrict eligibility and benefits.
Schwarzenegger may also want to hand deliver the state's application for education stimulus funds. Schwarzenegger aides last week said the state assigned $2 billion to the wrong year in its current application. It now wants to resubmit its application so the state can make $5.4 billion in education cuts.
Information from the Sac Bee Capitol Alert
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Anti Tax Radicals and Cranks
The anti tax radicals and the cranks are depending upon a low voter turnout today in California to defeat the propositions. They take no responsibility for the budget disaster which will follow.
Last year California had a serious budget crisis, over 34 billion in missing revenue. The legislature and the governor passed some temporary tax increases and made harsh budget cuts to get us through this year. Propositions 1 A- 1E, would continue this budget “solution” for a total of 4 years. However, the state, like other states continues to fall further behind. California is at least $21.3 billion behind at this time even with the increased taxes and budget cuts.
No on Prop 1 A
Since 2002 the CSU has lost almost $1 billion in state funding. Students have been charged more fees to make up the losses. Prop. 1A places a spending cap on the state budget that will make these cuts permanent. The CSU budget will not be restored to the levels of 2002 and tuition will continue to rise. The UC Board of Regents and the CSU Board of Trustees have already voted to increase tuition for the Fall by 10%.
Prop 1A would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California's needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how "unanticipated" revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services, including university education, by not taking proper account of the state's changing demographics and actual growth in costs.
Yes on 1 B
California's k-12 education system is in large part in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. Legislators only have a 23% support in the public. When comparisons include cost of living, California ranks 47th out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. Our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
California, and most other states, have a budget crisis as a result of the national economic crisis – significantly a banking crisis. The robber barons of finance capital have stolen the money, they have looted the treasury and our pensions and now they want to return to business as usual without any significant reform of the economic system. Just give them more tax payer money to bail out the banks.
The severity of the national and international economic collapse has created budget shortfalls for state and local governments. Economist Dean Baker, says "Since many states are required by their charters or constitutions to balance their budgets, states will end up using federal stimulus dollars to offset these shortfalls." It currently looks as if much of the stimulus package will be used to back fill state budget shortages which sharply limits the potential success of the stimulus.
Additional recommendations
Prop 1C: Yes –State Lottery (borrows from future lottery funds).
.Prop 1D: NO –Cuts funding for children’s services such as health care.
Prop 1E: NO –Cuts funding for much needed mental health services.
Last year California had a serious budget crisis, over 34 billion in missing revenue. The legislature and the governor passed some temporary tax increases and made harsh budget cuts to get us through this year. Propositions 1 A- 1E, would continue this budget “solution” for a total of 4 years. However, the state, like other states continues to fall further behind. California is at least $21.3 billion behind at this time even with the increased taxes and budget cuts.
No on Prop 1 A
Since 2002 the CSU has lost almost $1 billion in state funding. Students have been charged more fees to make up the losses. Prop. 1A places a spending cap on the state budget that will make these cuts permanent. The CSU budget will not be restored to the levels of 2002 and tuition will continue to rise. The UC Board of Regents and the CSU Board of Trustees have already voted to increase tuition for the Fall by 10%.
Prop 1A would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California's needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how "unanticipated" revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services, including university education, by not taking proper account of the state's changing demographics and actual growth in costs.
Yes on 1 B
California's k-12 education system is in large part in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. Legislators only have a 23% support in the public. When comparisons include cost of living, California ranks 47th out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. Our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
California, and most other states, have a budget crisis as a result of the national economic crisis – significantly a banking crisis. The robber barons of finance capital have stolen the money, they have looted the treasury and our pensions and now they want to return to business as usual without any significant reform of the economic system. Just give them more tax payer money to bail out the banks.
The severity of the national and international economic collapse has created budget shortfalls for state and local governments. Economist Dean Baker, says "Since many states are required by their charters or constitutions to balance their budgets, states will end up using federal stimulus dollars to offset these shortfalls." It currently looks as if much of the stimulus package will be used to back fill state budget shortages which sharply limits the potential success of the stimulus.
Additional recommendations
Prop 1C: Yes –State Lottery (borrows from future lottery funds).
.Prop 1D: NO –Cuts funding for children’s services such as health care.
Prop 1E: NO –Cuts funding for much needed mental health services.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
CSU Fee increases; $378 - $6,300
CSU Trustees Increase Student Fees for 2009-10 as State Funding Declines
Fees increase $306 per year for undergraduates.
(May 13, 2009) – Facing serious reductions in state funding, the California State University Board of Trustees today increased undergraduate, credential and graduate student fees for the 2009-10 academic year.
Effective in fall 2009, full-time annual fees will increase by $306 for undergraduate students, $354 for teacher credential students and $378 for graduate students. The undergraduate State University Fee will go up from the current $3,048 to $3,354 per year. Including the current average campus fee of $801, CSU undergraduate students will pay approximately $4,155 for one academic year, which is the lowest fee among comparable public institutions.
“It is never an easy choice to raise fees, but we are faced with a dire state budget, and today’s increase is necessary to maintain and operate our university campuses,” said CSU Board Chair Jeffrey Bleich. “It is critical that students get their financial aid requests in. This year, benefits for programs such as the Pell Grant are more generous than ever. Through financial aid and grants, nearly half of our students will see no increase in their fees. In addition, due to financial aid, CSU students with family incomes of $75,000 or less will pay no fees at all.”
The student fee increase, which represents $127 million in revenue, was included as part of the 2009-10 budget adopted by the legislature.The university will set aside one-third of the revenue from the fee increase ($42 million) to augment financial aid to cover the fee increase for financially needy students. Approximately 183,000 undergraduate students will receive grants that fully pay the entire fee, which represents about 80 percent of undergraduates who receive financial aid. All other financial aid recipients will be offered loans and employment to offset the fee increase.
The CSU Trustees voted 17 to 2 in favor of the fee increase with Lt. Governor John Garamendi and student trustee Curtis Grima casting dissenting votes.
New Professional MBA Fee Also Adopted
Trustees also adopted a professional fee for state-supported Master’s of Business Administration (MBA) programs and similar business graduate degrees. The fee adds $210 per semester unit and $140 per quarter unit for an annual cost of $9,174. The CSU’s MBA programs remain well below the price for comparable institutions.
Up to one-third of the new fee revenue will be set aside for financial aid with the remainder used to recruit highly skilled faculty to make accreditation of the MBA programs more secure. The proposed fee would apply to professional business master’s programs accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB).
The trustees voted 18 to 1 in favor of the professional MBA fee increase with Lt. Governor Garamendi casting the lone dissenting vote.
Fees increase $306 per year for undergraduates.
(May 13, 2009) – Facing serious reductions in state funding, the California State University Board of Trustees today increased undergraduate, credential and graduate student fees for the 2009-10 academic year.
Effective in fall 2009, full-time annual fees will increase by $306 for undergraduate students, $354 for teacher credential students and $378 for graduate students. The undergraduate State University Fee will go up from the current $3,048 to $3,354 per year. Including the current average campus fee of $801, CSU undergraduate students will pay approximately $4,155 for one academic year, which is the lowest fee among comparable public institutions.
“It is never an easy choice to raise fees, but we are faced with a dire state budget, and today’s increase is necessary to maintain and operate our university campuses,” said CSU Board Chair Jeffrey Bleich. “It is critical that students get their financial aid requests in. This year, benefits for programs such as the Pell Grant are more generous than ever. Through financial aid and grants, nearly half of our students will see no increase in their fees. In addition, due to financial aid, CSU students with family incomes of $75,000 or less will pay no fees at all.”
The student fee increase, which represents $127 million in revenue, was included as part of the 2009-10 budget adopted by the legislature.The university will set aside one-third of the revenue from the fee increase ($42 million) to augment financial aid to cover the fee increase for financially needy students. Approximately 183,000 undergraduate students will receive grants that fully pay the entire fee, which represents about 80 percent of undergraduates who receive financial aid. All other financial aid recipients will be offered loans and employment to offset the fee increase.
The CSU Trustees voted 17 to 2 in favor of the fee increase with Lt. Governor John Garamendi and student trustee Curtis Grima casting dissenting votes.
New Professional MBA Fee Also Adopted
Trustees also adopted a professional fee for state-supported Master’s of Business Administration (MBA) programs and similar business graduate degrees. The fee adds $210 per semester unit and $140 per quarter unit for an annual cost of $9,174. The CSU’s MBA programs remain well below the price for comparable institutions.
Up to one-third of the new fee revenue will be set aside for financial aid with the remainder used to recruit highly skilled faculty to make accreditation of the MBA programs more secure. The proposed fee would apply to professional business master’s programs accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB).
The trustees voted 18 to 1 in favor of the professional MBA fee increase with Lt. Governor Garamendi casting the lone dissenting vote.
California budget crisis
No on 1 A
Yes on 1 B.
Last year California had a serious budget crisis, over 34 billion in missing revenue. The legislature and the governor passed some temporary tax increases and made harsh budget cuts to get us through this year. Propositions 1 A- 1E, would continue this budget “solution” for a total of 4 years. However, the state, like other states continues to fall further behind. California is at least $21.3 billion behind at this time even with the increased taxes and budget cuts.
No on Prop 1 A
Since 2002 the CSU has lost almost $1 billion in state funding. Students have been charged more fees to make up the losses. Prop. 1A places a spending cap on the state budget that will make these cuts permanent. The CSU budget will not be restored to the levels of 2002 and tuition will continue to rise. The UC Board of Regents and the CSU Board of Trustees have already voted to increase tuition for the Fall by 10%.
Prop 1A would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California's needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how "unanticipated" revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services, including university education, by not taking proper account of the state's changing demographics and actual growth in costs.
Yes on 1 B
California's k-12 education system is in large part in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. Legislators only have a 23% support in the public. When comparisons include cost of living, California ranks 47th out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. Our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
California, and most other states, have a budget crisis as a result of the national economic crisis – significantly a banking crisis. The robber barons of finance capital have stolen the money, they have looted the treasury and our pensions and now they want to return to business as usual without any significant reform of the economic system. Just give them more tax payer money to bail out the banks.
The severity of the national and international economic collapse has created budget shortfalls for state and local governments. Economist Dean Baker, says "Since many states are required by their charters or constitutions to balance their budgets, states will end up using federal stimulus dollars to offset these shortfalls." It currently looks as if much of the stimulus package will be used to back fill state budget shortages which sharply limits the potential success of the stimulus.
Additional recommendations
Prop 1C: NO –State Lottery (borrows from future lottery funds).
.Prop 1D: NO –Cuts funding for children’s services such as health care.
Prop 1E: NO –Cuts funding for much needed mental health services.
Yes on 1 B.
Last year California had a serious budget crisis, over 34 billion in missing revenue. The legislature and the governor passed some temporary tax increases and made harsh budget cuts to get us through this year. Propositions 1 A- 1E, would continue this budget “solution” for a total of 4 years. However, the state, like other states continues to fall further behind. California is at least $21.3 billion behind at this time even with the increased taxes and budget cuts.
No on Prop 1 A
Since 2002 the CSU has lost almost $1 billion in state funding. Students have been charged more fees to make up the losses. Prop. 1A places a spending cap on the state budget that will make these cuts permanent. The CSU budget will not be restored to the levels of 2002 and tuition will continue to rise. The UC Board of Regents and the CSU Board of Trustees have already voted to increase tuition for the Fall by 10%.
Prop 1A would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California's needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how "unanticipated" revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services, including university education, by not taking proper account of the state's changing demographics and actual growth in costs.
Yes on 1 B
California's k-12 education system is in large part in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. Legislators only have a 23% support in the public. When comparisons include cost of living, California ranks 47th out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. Our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
California, and most other states, have a budget crisis as a result of the national economic crisis – significantly a banking crisis. The robber barons of finance capital have stolen the money, they have looted the treasury and our pensions and now they want to return to business as usual without any significant reform of the economic system. Just give them more tax payer money to bail out the banks.
The severity of the national and international economic collapse has created budget shortfalls for state and local governments. Economist Dean Baker, says "Since many states are required by their charters or constitutions to balance their budgets, states will end up using federal stimulus dollars to offset these shortfalls." It currently looks as if much of the stimulus package will be used to back fill state budget shortages which sharply limits the potential success of the stimulus.
Additional recommendations
Prop 1C: NO –State Lottery (borrows from future lottery funds).
.Prop 1D: NO –Cuts funding for children’s services such as health care.
Prop 1E: NO –Cuts funding for much needed mental health services.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Students Rally against Budget Cuts
STUDENTS OF COLOR TALK BACK:
THOUSANDS RALLY AGAINST BUDGET CUTS IN SACRAMENTO
CAMPAIGN FOR QUALITY EDUCATION GATHERS TO SUPPORT
“100 PERCENT PREPARED FOR COLLEGE AND CAREER” CAMPAIGN AND ASSEMBLY BILL 8
SACRAMENTO, CA. In the midst of massive cuts to the state education budget, more than a
thousand students and allies from across California converged on Sacramento to give a long overdue
voice from students of color on education and to tell the Governor and Legislature, “Don’t Pink Slip
Our Education!” In addition to a morning rally and march around the capitol, the student leaders
delivered over 5,000 signed postcards of support to the Governor, testified before the Assembly
Education Committee, and met with more than forty legislators to build support for Assembly Bill 8
and Assembly Concurrent Resolution 54.
The mobilization was organized by the Campaign for Quality Education – an alliance of over 25
organizations that work for educational justice and equity in low-income, immigrant, communities of
color – as part of their “100 Percent Prepared for College and Career” Campaign, an effort to ensure
that all California students have the educational resources to go on to college or a well-paying career
upon graduating from high school.
“I came here today to give a students a voice about their education,” said Scottie Gonzalez, a
sophomore at Overfelt High School in San Jose, who emceed the rally. “I came to say I care about my
education and that I deserve a school that will get me ready for the future.” Gonzalez called the current
budget crisis a “budget opportunity,” a chance to re-prioritize education and to fund schools more
equitably so that all California students had access to college prep courses, counselors, and qualified
teachers. “Right now,” he said, “If you go to certain schools, you go to college. If you don’t go those
Assembly hearings were held.
THOUSANDS RALLY AGAINST BUDGET CUTS IN SACRAMENTO
CAMPAIGN FOR QUALITY EDUCATION GATHERS TO SUPPORT
“100 PERCENT PREPARED FOR COLLEGE AND CAREER” CAMPAIGN AND ASSEMBLY BILL 8
SACRAMENTO, CA. In the midst of massive cuts to the state education budget, more than a
thousand students and allies from across California converged on Sacramento to give a long overdue
voice from students of color on education and to tell the Governor and Legislature, “Don’t Pink Slip
Our Education!” In addition to a morning rally and march around the capitol, the student leaders
delivered over 5,000 signed postcards of support to the Governor, testified before the Assembly
Education Committee, and met with more than forty legislators to build support for Assembly Bill 8
and Assembly Concurrent Resolution 54.
The mobilization was organized by the Campaign for Quality Education – an alliance of over 25
organizations that work for educational justice and equity in low-income, immigrant, communities of
color – as part of their “100 Percent Prepared for College and Career” Campaign, an effort to ensure
that all California students have the educational resources to go on to college or a well-paying career
upon graduating from high school.
“I came here today to give a students a voice about their education,” said Scottie Gonzalez, a
sophomore at Overfelt High School in San Jose, who emceed the rally. “I came to say I care about my
education and that I deserve a school that will get me ready for the future.” Gonzalez called the current
budget crisis a “budget opportunity,” a chance to re-prioritize education and to fund schools more
equitably so that all California students had access to college prep courses, counselors, and qualified
teachers. “Right now,” he said, “If you go to certain schools, you go to college. If you don’t go those
Assembly hearings were held.
California dropout crisis
CDE Report Shows Scant Movement on California Drop Out Rates
Yesterday State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell today released the annual report on dropout and graduation rates for the 2007-08 school year.
In 2007-08, 68.1 percent of public school students in California graduated, up from 67.7 percent last year. The adjusted four-year derived dropout rate for the same school year is 20.1 percent, down from 21.1 percent last year.
“I am heartened that the graduation rate is up slightly, but California’s dropout rate is still unacceptably high,” said O’Connell. “If we look deeper into the data, we see alarmingly high dropout rates among African American and Hispanic students. There are long-term economic repercussions from not graduating for the student, for their communities, and for our statewide economy. These data provide even more evidence of the challenge and the moral imperative of closing the achievement gap as well as increasing graduation rates among all students.”
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) commented on the report:
“The high dropout numbers reported today by Superintendent O’Connell illustrate that California’s most important work is ensuring that millions of students don’t simply fall through the cracks by dropping out of school. Even in these challenging fiscal times, we must do more for these students – especially in Latino and African-American communities where the crisis is demonstratively worse and where there are economic justice implications for our entire society. The way that California can build a just and thriving economy over the long-term is to provide education and training that inspires students to plan for careers in the state’s growing job sectors.”
Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee comments, “the Department of Education numbers are highly controversial among outside researchers, with some contending that the true rate is as high as one-third, with some urban school districts losing 50 percent or more of those who enter the ninth grade.”
Meanwhile Senator Gloria Romero, Chair of the Senate Committee on Education descries the minimal dropout rate reduction and argues that education failure needs data reporting overhaul such as her authored legislation SB 651.
“We don’t need another report to tell us that we are failing miserably to educate the future citizens of California,” said Senator Romero (D-East Los Angeles). “We need to completely transform how we engage students to stay in school and to excel. We need better measures predicting dropout trends instead of gloomy statistics that just measure the body count. And we certainly need to increase our graduation rates far more than a measly .4 percent to meet the economic challenges of tomorrow,” she said.
The California Department of Education (CDE) release described in detail the report.
Duane Campbell response.
So, what should be done?
All Romero's bill does is ask for another report.
We know what causes dropouts. the problem is that the legislature refuses to fund the programs that would reduce drop outs.
Too many working-class students have been trained for defeat. Sitting in classes completing endless worksheets to prepare for poor quality exams confirms a cynical belief that schooling and education make little real difference in life. On the other hand, social participation—and school-to-work opportunities along with digital media empowers students and provides a means to break out of these defeatist patterns. Work in community agencies gives students a realistic view of the processes of change. Adult community activists serve as mentors to students and encourage them to complete their education. Students begin their transition to the world of work and return to school more mature and focused on improving their own education.
Interaction with life, work, racism, and poverty will convince many students of the value of education. Students gain a sense of social responsibility when they participate in projects that actually contribute to the health of their own communities.
Yesterday State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell today released the annual report on dropout and graduation rates for the 2007-08 school year.
In 2007-08, 68.1 percent of public school students in California graduated, up from 67.7 percent last year. The adjusted four-year derived dropout rate for the same school year is 20.1 percent, down from 21.1 percent last year.
“I am heartened that the graduation rate is up slightly, but California’s dropout rate is still unacceptably high,” said O’Connell. “If we look deeper into the data, we see alarmingly high dropout rates among African American and Hispanic students. There are long-term economic repercussions from not graduating for the student, for their communities, and for our statewide economy. These data provide even more evidence of the challenge and the moral imperative of closing the achievement gap as well as increasing graduation rates among all students.”
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) commented on the report:
“The high dropout numbers reported today by Superintendent O’Connell illustrate that California’s most important work is ensuring that millions of students don’t simply fall through the cracks by dropping out of school. Even in these challenging fiscal times, we must do more for these students – especially in Latino and African-American communities where the crisis is demonstratively worse and where there are economic justice implications for our entire society. The way that California can build a just and thriving economy over the long-term is to provide education and training that inspires students to plan for careers in the state’s growing job sectors.”
Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee comments, “the Department of Education numbers are highly controversial among outside researchers, with some contending that the true rate is as high as one-third, with some urban school districts losing 50 percent or more of those who enter the ninth grade.”
Meanwhile Senator Gloria Romero, Chair of the Senate Committee on Education descries the minimal dropout rate reduction and argues that education failure needs data reporting overhaul such as her authored legislation SB 651.
“We don’t need another report to tell us that we are failing miserably to educate the future citizens of California,” said Senator Romero (D-East Los Angeles). “We need to completely transform how we engage students to stay in school and to excel. We need better measures predicting dropout trends instead of gloomy statistics that just measure the body count. And we certainly need to increase our graduation rates far more than a measly .4 percent to meet the economic challenges of tomorrow,” she said.
The California Department of Education (CDE) release described in detail the report.
Duane Campbell response.
So, what should be done?
All Romero's bill does is ask for another report.
We know what causes dropouts. the problem is that the legislature refuses to fund the programs that would reduce drop outs.
Too many working-class students have been trained for defeat. Sitting in classes completing endless worksheets to prepare for poor quality exams confirms a cynical belief that schooling and education make little real difference in life. On the other hand, social participation—and school-to-work opportunities along with digital media empowers students and provides a means to break out of these defeatist patterns. Work in community agencies gives students a realistic view of the processes of change. Adult community activists serve as mentors to students and encourage them to complete their education. Students begin their transition to the world of work and return to school more mature and focused on improving their own education.
Interaction with life, work, racism, and poverty will convince many students of the value of education. Students gain a sense of social responsibility when they participate in projects that actually contribute to the health of their own communities.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Economic Crisis and schools
Last year California had a serious budget crisis, over 34 billion in missing revenue. The legislature and the governor passed some temporary tax increases and made harsh budget cuts to get us through this year. Propositions 1 A- 1E, would continue this budget “solution” for a total of 4 years. However, the state, like other states continues to fall further behind. We will soon receive an estimate from the Legislative Analyst’s office, but it appears that California is at least $21.3 billion behind at this time even with the increased taxes and budget cuts.
California, and most other states, have a budget crisis as a result of the national economic crisis – significantly a banking crisis. The robber barons of finance capital have stolen the money, they have looted the treasury and our pensions and now they want to return to business as usual without any significant reform of the economic system. Just give them more tax payer money to bail out the banks.
It is past time for us to say- NO. It is time to restore Glass -Steagal, gain ownership of some major banks, and to get a national health care system along with bailing out the states to avoid draconian cuts in schools and other human services.
The severity of the national and international economic collapse has created budget shortfalls for state and local governments. Dean Baker, CEPR Co-Director and an author of a report says "Since many states are required by their charters or constitutions to balance their budgets, states will end up using federal stimulus dollars to offset these shortfalls." It currently looks as if much of the stimulus package will be used to back fill state budget shortages which sharply limits the potential success of the stimulus.
California will receive a great deal of money for education. The proposals have been approved. Most of the money will go to hire teachers who have been scheduled to be laid off.
As we debate the ballot issues, it is important to keep in mind that the economic crisis was not created in Sacramento, it was not created by schools and teachers. There is a great deal of misplaced anger being posted and shouted.
No on Prop. 1 A.
Since 2002 the CSU has lost almost $1 billion in state funding. Students have been charged more fees to make up the losses. Prop. 1A places a spending cap on the state budget that will make these cuts permanent. The CSU budget will not be restored to the levels of 2002 and your tuition will continue to rise. The Board of Regents is voting this week to increase tuition for the Fall by 10%.
[Prop 1A] would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California's needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how "unanticipated" revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services, including university education, by not taking proper account of the state's changing demographics and actual growth in costs.
Yes on 1 B.
California's k-12 education system is in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. When comparisons include cost of living- California ranks 47th. out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. Our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
Prop. 1 B would begin to repay the schools some $9 Billion taken by the Legislature from school funding this year in response to the economic crisis. The money would be repayed beginning in 2011, when we hope this economic crisis will have passed. Prop 1 B would return California to the minimum guarantee of funding for schools that exists in current law.
Note in the post below, the public votes with the teachers and does not have confidence in the legislature.
California, and most other states, have a budget crisis as a result of the national economic crisis – significantly a banking crisis. The robber barons of finance capital have stolen the money, they have looted the treasury and our pensions and now they want to return to business as usual without any significant reform of the economic system. Just give them more tax payer money to bail out the banks.
It is past time for us to say- NO. It is time to restore Glass -Steagal, gain ownership of some major banks, and to get a national health care system along with bailing out the states to avoid draconian cuts in schools and other human services.
The severity of the national and international economic collapse has created budget shortfalls for state and local governments. Dean Baker, CEPR Co-Director and an author of a report says "Since many states are required by their charters or constitutions to balance their budgets, states will end up using federal stimulus dollars to offset these shortfalls." It currently looks as if much of the stimulus package will be used to back fill state budget shortages which sharply limits the potential success of the stimulus.
California will receive a great deal of money for education. The proposals have been approved. Most of the money will go to hire teachers who have been scheduled to be laid off.
As we debate the ballot issues, it is important to keep in mind that the economic crisis was not created in Sacramento, it was not created by schools and teachers. There is a great deal of misplaced anger being posted and shouted.
No on Prop. 1 A.
Since 2002 the CSU has lost almost $1 billion in state funding. Students have been charged more fees to make up the losses. Prop. 1A places a spending cap on the state budget that will make these cuts permanent. The CSU budget will not be restored to the levels of 2002 and your tuition will continue to rise. The Board of Regents is voting this week to increase tuition for the Fall by 10%.
[Prop 1A] would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California's needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how "unanticipated" revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services, including university education, by not taking proper account of the state's changing demographics and actual growth in costs.
Yes on 1 B.
California's k-12 education system is in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. When comparisons include cost of living- California ranks 47th. out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. Our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
Prop. 1 B would begin to repay the schools some $9 Billion taken by the Legislature from school funding this year in response to the economic crisis. The money would be repayed beginning in 2011, when we hope this economic crisis will have passed. Prop 1 B would return California to the minimum guarantee of funding for schools that exists in current law.
Note in the post below, the public votes with the teachers and does not have confidence in the legislature.
Listening and Arne Duncan
Arne Duncan was on CSPAN yesterday explaining his view of budget and the possibilities of school reform.
He said little about NCLB. In the discussion of the stimulus bill, it was clear that California will receive a great deal of money for education. The proposals are approved. Most of the money will go to hire teachers who have been scheduled to be laid off.
Education Secretary Duncan is touring the US to listen and learn about NCLB. Invite him to your school and share how NCLB affects you. Email him at Arne.Duncan@ed.gov
Read more about the “Listening and Learning” tour at:
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/05/05052009.html
This Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will begin the "Listening and Learning: A Conversation About Education Reform" tour with three events in West Virginia. In the coming months, Duncan will travel to 15 or more states to solicit feedback from a broad group of stakeholders around federal education policy in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The tour will gather input on the Obama administration's education agenda, including early childhood, higher standards, teacher quality, workforce development and higher education. On Tuesday's trip, Duncan will travel with West Virginia State Superintendent Steven Paine, First Lady and State School Board Member Gayle Manchin, and Berkeley School District Superintendent Manny Arvon.
"The primary purpose of the Listening and Learning tour is to have a national dialogue about how to best deliver a complete and competitive education to all children—from cradle through career," Duncan said. "We want to hear directly from people in the classroom about how the federal government can support educators, school districts and states to drive education reform. Before crafting education law in Washington, we want to hear from people across America—parents, teachers and administrators—about the everyday issues and challenges in our schools that need our national attention and support."
Other states targeted for potential events include Michigan; Vermont; California; Montana; Wyoming; New Jersey; Tennessee; North Carolina; Washington, D.C.; Ohio; Indiana; Florida; Utah; and Alaska. Additional states and events may be added during the course of the tour.
Duncan wants to ensure that he visits a mix of rural, urban, suburban and ethnically diverse districts, and hears from a broad range of stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, administrators and community and business leaders. Specific events will vary from small group private meetings to large public forums.
The meetings and events will be taped, and reports and video summaries will be published on the Department's Website, www.ed.gov. Duncan said the tour will "help launch an open, honest conversation about education reform, because this issue touches everybody in America.
"Education is not just an economic issue," he said, it's a moral issue. It's the civil rights issue of our generation. We have an obligation to give every child in America an education that helps them succeed in their career and fulfill their role as active and involved citizens."
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Public Opinions of Legislators
California April 2009.
Job Approval Ratings for California State Legislature
PPIC Statewide Survey, April 2009
Approve Disapprove Don’t Know
All Adults 23% 63% 14%
Registered Voters 21 68 11
Likely Voters 16 74 10
April 2008.
CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNOR, LEGISLATURE PLUMMETS
At a time when the governor and the legislature need to reach an agreement to resolve the state budget
crisis, Californians’ confidence in the state’s leaders has declined, particularly in the area of K-12
education. Four in 10 Californians (41%) approve of Schwarzenegger’s overall job performance, down 3
points since last month (44% approval) and a steep 16 points since December (57% approval). Just 25
percent approve of his handling of K-12 education, down 11 points since last April and the lowest point
since we began asking this question in January 2005, when the governor’s approval rating in this area
stood at 34%.
The legislature fares worse in Californians’ estimation. Just one in four Californians (26%) approve of the
way lawmakers are doing their jobs overall, down 4 points since last month (30% approval) and 15 points
since December (41% approval). Only 21 percent of Californians approve of the way the legislature is
handling public schools, down 8 points from last April (29%).
Job Approval Ratings for California State Legislature
PPIC Statewide Survey, April 2009
Approve Disapprove Don’t Know
All Adults 23% 63% 14%
Registered Voters 21 68 11
Likely Voters 16 74 10
April 2008.
CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNOR, LEGISLATURE PLUMMETS
At a time when the governor and the legislature need to reach an agreement to resolve the state budget
crisis, Californians’ confidence in the state’s leaders has declined, particularly in the area of K-12
education. Four in 10 Californians (41%) approve of Schwarzenegger’s overall job performance, down 3
points since last month (44% approval) and a steep 16 points since December (57% approval). Just 25
percent approve of his handling of K-12 education, down 11 points since last April and the lowest point
since we began asking this question in January 2005, when the governor’s approval rating in this area
stood at 34%.
The legislature fares worse in Californians’ estimation. Just one in four Californians (26%) approve of the
way lawmakers are doing their jobs overall, down 4 points since last month (30% approval) and 15 points
since December (41% approval). Only 21 percent of Californians approve of the way the legislature is
handling public schools, down 8 points from last April (29%).
NCLB : listening tour
Education Secretary Duncan is touring the US to listen and learn about NCLB. Invite him to your school and share how NCLB affects you. Email him at Arne.Duncan@ed.gov
Read more about the “Listening and Learning” tour at:
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/05/05052009.html
This Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will begin the "Listening and Learning: A Conversation About Education Reform" tour with three events in West Virginia. In the coming months, Duncan will travel to 15 or more states to solicit feedback from a broad group of stakeholders around federal education policy in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The tour will gather input on the Obama administration's education agenda, including early childhood, higher standards, teacher quality, workforce development and higher education. On Tuesday's trip, Duncan will travel with West Virginia State Superintendent Steven Paine, First Lady and State School Board Member Gayle Manchin, and Berkeley School District Superintendent Manny Arvon.
"The primary purpose of the Listening and Learning tour is to have a national dialogue about how to best deliver a complete and competitive education to all children—from cradle through career," Duncan said. "We want to hear directly from people in the classroom about how the federal government can support educators, school districts and states to drive education reform. Before crafting education law in Washington, we want to hear from people across America—parents, teachers and administrators—about the everyday issues and challenges in our schools that need our national attention and support."
Other states targeted for potential events include Michigan; Vermont; California; Montana; Wyoming; New Jersey; Tennessee; North Carolina; Washington, D.C.; Ohio; Indiana; Florida; Utah; and Alaska. Additional states and events may be added during the course of the tour.
Duncan wants to ensure that he visits a mix of rural, urban, suburban and ethnically diverse districts, and hears from a broad range of stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, administrators and community and business leaders. Specific events will vary from small group private meetings to large public forums.
The meetings and events will be taped, and reports and video summaries will be published on the Department's Website, www.ed.gov. Duncan said the tour will "help launch an open, honest conversation about education reform, because this issue touches everybody in America.
"Education is not just an economic issue," he said, it's a moral issue. It's the civil rights issue of our generation. We have an obligation to give every child in America an education that helps them succeed in their career and fulfill their role as active and involved citizens."
Read more about the “Listening and Learning” tour at:
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/05/05052009.html
This Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will begin the "Listening and Learning: A Conversation About Education Reform" tour with three events in West Virginia. In the coming months, Duncan will travel to 15 or more states to solicit feedback from a broad group of stakeholders around federal education policy in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The tour will gather input on the Obama administration's education agenda, including early childhood, higher standards, teacher quality, workforce development and higher education. On Tuesday's trip, Duncan will travel with West Virginia State Superintendent Steven Paine, First Lady and State School Board Member Gayle Manchin, and Berkeley School District Superintendent Manny Arvon.
"The primary purpose of the Listening and Learning tour is to have a national dialogue about how to best deliver a complete and competitive education to all children—from cradle through career," Duncan said. "We want to hear directly from people in the classroom about how the federal government can support educators, school districts and states to drive education reform. Before crafting education law in Washington, we want to hear from people across America—parents, teachers and administrators—about the everyday issues and challenges in our schools that need our national attention and support."
Other states targeted for potential events include Michigan; Vermont; California; Montana; Wyoming; New Jersey; Tennessee; North Carolina; Washington, D.C.; Ohio; Indiana; Florida; Utah; and Alaska. Additional states and events may be added during the course of the tour.
Duncan wants to ensure that he visits a mix of rural, urban, suburban and ethnically diverse districts, and hears from a broad range of stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, administrators and community and business leaders. Specific events will vary from small group private meetings to large public forums.
The meetings and events will be taped, and reports and video summaries will be published on the Department's Website, www.ed.gov. Duncan said the tour will "help launch an open, honest conversation about education reform, because this issue touches everybody in America.
"Education is not just an economic issue," he said, it's a moral issue. It's the civil rights issue of our generation. We have an obligation to give every child in America an education that helps them succeed in their career and fulfill their role as active and involved citizens."
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Schools could see $3.6 billion cut
Education could see $3.6 billion cut
Department of Finance officials told education groups today that K-14 schools could see a $3.6 billion cut due to a projected drop in revenues, as the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office suggested in March would be a possibility.
Finance officials did not tie the reduction to the May 19 ballot measures but said $3.6 billion is the amount in allowable school cuts under Proposition 98 assuming the LAO's projection of $8 billion in lower revenues proves accurate, said Dennis Meyers, assistant executive director for the California Association of School Business Officials.
The ballot measures may have little impact on 2009-10 school funding, Meyers said, because the $3.6 billion figure is based on a revenue decline regardless of whatever gap exists should Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E fail. But he said the measures' failure could put more pressure on the governor and the Legislature to take the full $3.6 billion.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said earlier today that the state can't cut too much out of education without jeopardizing federal stimulus funding. The federal package requires that the state maintain school funding at its 2006 level to be eligible. He said he'd prefer to look for savings in corrections and acknowledged that health and human services would face cuts if the ballot measures fail and the state faces a significant revenue drop this year.
Categories: Special election 5/19/09, State budget
From: Capital Alert. The Sacramento Bee
Posted by Kevin Yamamura
Response:
California’s needs an education system that produces more skilled high-school graduates today more than at any other time in our past.
California's k-12 education system is in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. When comparisons include cost of living- California ranks 47th. out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. The children in our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
California students leave middle and high schools at the rate of 140,000 per year and cost taxpayers $46 billion annually in crime, social welfare, health, public assistance and other taxpayer costs.
Duane Campbell
Department of Finance officials told education groups today that K-14 schools could see a $3.6 billion cut due to a projected drop in revenues, as the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office suggested in March would be a possibility.
Finance officials did not tie the reduction to the May 19 ballot measures but said $3.6 billion is the amount in allowable school cuts under Proposition 98 assuming the LAO's projection of $8 billion in lower revenues proves accurate, said Dennis Meyers, assistant executive director for the California Association of School Business Officials.
The ballot measures may have little impact on 2009-10 school funding, Meyers said, because the $3.6 billion figure is based on a revenue decline regardless of whatever gap exists should Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E fail. But he said the measures' failure could put more pressure on the governor and the Legislature to take the full $3.6 billion.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said earlier today that the state can't cut too much out of education without jeopardizing federal stimulus funding. The federal package requires that the state maintain school funding at its 2006 level to be eligible. He said he'd prefer to look for savings in corrections and acknowledged that health and human services would face cuts if the ballot measures fail and the state faces a significant revenue drop this year.
Categories: Special election 5/19/09, State budget
From: Capital Alert. The Sacramento Bee
Posted by Kevin Yamamura
Response:
California’s needs an education system that produces more skilled high-school graduates today more than at any other time in our past.
California's k-12 education system is in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. When comparisons include cost of living- California ranks 47th. out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. The children in our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
California students leave middle and high schools at the rate of 140,000 per year and cost taxpayers $46 billion annually in crime, social welfare, health, public assistance and other taxpayer costs.
Duane Campbell
Arne Duncan and Chicago School Success?
*****************************
From Rethinking Schools Online, Spring 2009, Volume 23, No. 3. See http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_03/arne233.shtml
*****************************
Arne Duncan and the Chicago Success Story: Myth or Reality?
By Jitu Brown, Eric (Rico) Gutstein, and Pauline Lipman
When ex-President Bush was elected in 2000, he brought with him former Houston Superintendent of Education Rod Paige to be Secretary of Education. He also brought the "Texas miracle"-supposedly increased test scores attributed to Texas' strict accountability system. All eyes smiled on Texas as those measures quickly became part of No Child Left Behind, passed into law in 2001 by both political parties. Before the end of Bush's first term, Paige would leave in disgrace, thanks to revelations of cooked scores, forced-out students, and other barely legal means of inflating test results.
With the appointment by Barack Obama of Arne Duncan-a noneducator from the business sector who was Chicago's "chief executive officer"-as U.S. Secretary of Education, this phenomenon may repeat itself. For the past several years, Chicago's model of school closings and education privatization has received national attention as another beacon of urban education reform. This may have special relevance as the number of schools "identified for improvement" by NCLB criteria grows, numbering 11,547 nationally in the 2007-08 school year. Other school districts across the U.S. have already undertaken programs similar to Chicago's-New Orleans, in the wake of Katrina, has had a massive privatization of schools (see the special report on New Orleans in Rethinking Schools Vol. 21, No. 1), New York City has proposed closing and phasing out schools using criteria similar to Chicago's (e.g., test scores), and Philadelphia has followed suit as well, with a number of new charter schools. As Chicago Mayor Daley said in a 2006 press conference, "Together, in 12 years we have taken the Chicago Public School system from the worst in the nation to the national model for urban school reform." The Chicago Commercial Club's Renaissance Schools Fund Symposium, "Free to Choose, Free to Succeed: The New Market in Public Education," in May 2008, was attended by school officials from 15 states. The headline for a Dec. 30 article in the Washington Post claimed, "Chicago School Reform Could Be a U.S. Model." And outgoing Secretary Margaret Spellings praised Duncan as a national leader for his teacher incentive pay program.
However, Chicago school policy has not really been set by Duncan-Chicago's education agenda is bigger than him and is about more than schools.
Read the entire piece by clicking on the title.
From Rethinking Schools Online, Spring 2009, Volume 23, No. 3. See http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_03/arne233.shtml
*****************************
Arne Duncan and the Chicago Success Story: Myth or Reality?
By Jitu Brown, Eric (Rico) Gutstein, and Pauline Lipman
When ex-President Bush was elected in 2000, he brought with him former Houston Superintendent of Education Rod Paige to be Secretary of Education. He also brought the "Texas miracle"-supposedly increased test scores attributed to Texas' strict accountability system. All eyes smiled on Texas as those measures quickly became part of No Child Left Behind, passed into law in 2001 by both political parties. Before the end of Bush's first term, Paige would leave in disgrace, thanks to revelations of cooked scores, forced-out students, and other barely legal means of inflating test results.
With the appointment by Barack Obama of Arne Duncan-a noneducator from the business sector who was Chicago's "chief executive officer"-as U.S. Secretary of Education, this phenomenon may repeat itself. For the past several years, Chicago's model of school closings and education privatization has received national attention as another beacon of urban education reform. This may have special relevance as the number of schools "identified for improvement" by NCLB criteria grows, numbering 11,547 nationally in the 2007-08 school year. Other school districts across the U.S. have already undertaken programs similar to Chicago's-New Orleans, in the wake of Katrina, has had a massive privatization of schools (see the special report on New Orleans in Rethinking Schools Vol. 21, No. 1), New York City has proposed closing and phasing out schools using criteria similar to Chicago's (e.g., test scores), and Philadelphia has followed suit as well, with a number of new charter schools. As Chicago Mayor Daley said in a 2006 press conference, "Together, in 12 years we have taken the Chicago Public School system from the worst in the nation to the national model for urban school reform." The Chicago Commercial Club's Renaissance Schools Fund Symposium, "Free to Choose, Free to Succeed: The New Market in Public Education," in May 2008, was attended by school officials from 15 states. The headline for a Dec. 30 article in the Washington Post claimed, "Chicago School Reform Could Be a U.S. Model." And outgoing Secretary Margaret Spellings praised Duncan as a national leader for his teacher incentive pay program.
However, Chicago school policy has not really been set by Duncan-Chicago's education agenda is bigger than him and is about more than schools.
Read the entire piece by clicking on the title.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
California in the red again
California over 6 Billion in the red, the special election results will make it worse.
Last year California had a serious budget crisis, over 30 Billion in missing revenue. The legislature and the governor passed some temporary tax increases and made harsh budget cuts to get us through this year. Propositions 1 A- 1E, would continue this budget “solution” for a total of 4 years. However, the state, like other states continues to fall further behind. We will soon receive an estimate from the Legislative Analyst’s office, but it appears that California is at least $6 billion behind at this time even with the increased taxes and budget cuts.
The severity of the national and international economic collapse has created budget shortfalls for state and local governments. Dean Baker, CEPR Co-Director and an author of a report says "Since many states are required by their charters or constitutions to balance their budgets, states will end up using federal stimulus dollars to offset these shortfalls." It currently looks as if much of the stimulus package will be used to back fill state budget shortages which sharply limits the potential success of the stimulus.
Step 1: the May 19, 2009 elections.
Major unions are divided on the Propositions.
The California Teachers Association urges a Yes vote on each of the propositions.
On 1 A, it says, Prop. 1A will control state spending and create a long term reserve funds to protect against more cuts to our schools, children’s health care, and funding for police and fire.
The California Faculty Association, SEIU, the California Teachers Association and others argue for a No vote on Prop. 1 A.
CFA says, Commonly referred to as a “budget cap,” Prop. 1 A would institutionalize more than ten years of budget cuts to the CSU and make it nearly impossible for the system to recover.
It will create a “Rainy Day Fund” called the Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF) that will require than general fund revenue be diverted until the BSF equals 12.5% of revenue. Thus funds will be taken from schools, universities, and police even in good years until this 12.5% reserve is created.
Our view:
No on Prop. 1 A.
Since 2002 the California State University has lost almost $1 billion in state funding. Students have been charged more fees to make up the losses. Prop. 1A places a spending cap on the state budget that will make these cuts permanent. The CSU budget will not be restored to the levels of 2002 and your tuition will continue to rise.
Yes on 1 B.
California's k-12 education system is in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. When comparisons include cost of living- California ranks 47th. out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. Our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
Prop. 1 B would begin to repay the schools some $9 Billion taken by the Legislature from school funding this year in response to the economic crisis. The money would be repayed beginning in 2011, when we hope this economic crisis will have passed. Prop 1 B would return California to the minimum guarantee of funding for schools that exists in current law.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/stimulus-2009-05.pdf
More to follow.
Last year California had a serious budget crisis, over 30 Billion in missing revenue. The legislature and the governor passed some temporary tax increases and made harsh budget cuts to get us through this year. Propositions 1 A- 1E, would continue this budget “solution” for a total of 4 years. However, the state, like other states continues to fall further behind. We will soon receive an estimate from the Legislative Analyst’s office, but it appears that California is at least $6 billion behind at this time even with the increased taxes and budget cuts.
The severity of the national and international economic collapse has created budget shortfalls for state and local governments. Dean Baker, CEPR Co-Director and an author of a report says "Since many states are required by their charters or constitutions to balance their budgets, states will end up using federal stimulus dollars to offset these shortfalls." It currently looks as if much of the stimulus package will be used to back fill state budget shortages which sharply limits the potential success of the stimulus.
Step 1: the May 19, 2009 elections.
Major unions are divided on the Propositions.
The California Teachers Association urges a Yes vote on each of the propositions.
On 1 A, it says, Prop. 1A will control state spending and create a long term reserve funds to protect against more cuts to our schools, children’s health care, and funding for police and fire.
The California Faculty Association, SEIU, the California Teachers Association and others argue for a No vote on Prop. 1 A.
CFA says, Commonly referred to as a “budget cap,” Prop. 1 A would institutionalize more than ten years of budget cuts to the CSU and make it nearly impossible for the system to recover.
It will create a “Rainy Day Fund” called the Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF) that will require than general fund revenue be diverted until the BSF equals 12.5% of revenue. Thus funds will be taken from schools, universities, and police even in good years until this 12.5% reserve is created.
Our view:
No on Prop. 1 A.
Since 2002 the California State University has lost almost $1 billion in state funding. Students have been charged more fees to make up the losses. Prop. 1A places a spending cap on the state budget that will make these cuts permanent. The CSU budget will not be restored to the levels of 2002 and your tuition will continue to rise.
Yes on 1 B.
California's k-12 education system is in crisis because it is underfunded. Contrary to the wishes of the voters, politicians continue to fail to adequately fund our schools. When comparisons include cost of living- California ranks 47th. out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures. Our schools are suffering. This is unacceptable.
Prop. 1 B would begin to repay the schools some $9 Billion taken by the Legislature from school funding this year in response to the economic crisis. The money would be repayed beginning in 2011, when we hope this economic crisis will have passed. Prop 1 B would return California to the minimum guarantee of funding for schools that exists in current law.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/stimulus-2009-05.pdf
More to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
