Thursday, December 17, 2015

AEBG Regional Consortia 15-16 Allocations

AB104 Adult Education Block Grant Regional Consortia 15-16 Allocations
Regional Consortia  Total Allocation 
ALLAN HANCOCK  $                                   1,061,700
ANTELOPE VALLEY  $                                   1,506,388
BARSTOW  $                                       750,000
BUTTE-GLENN  $                                       906,520
CABRILLO  $                                   1,011,251
CERRITOS  $                                   1,707,599
CHABOT-LAS POSITAS  $                                   2,148,821
CHAFFEY  $                                   3,265,921
CITRUS  $                                       750,000
COAST  $                                   2,283,398
COMPTON  $                                   1,539,365
CONTRA COSTA  $                                   3,180,894
COPPER MOUNTAIN  $                                       750,000
DESERT  $                                   2,065,982
EL CAMINO  $                                   2,215,272
FEATHER RIVER  $                                       750,000
FOOTHILL-DEANZA  $                                       996,060
GAVILAN  $                                       750,000
GLENDALE  $                                       985,475
GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA  $                                   1,528,975
HARTNELL  $                                   1,703,899
IMPERIAL  $                                   1,028,678
KERN  $                                   4,492,132
LAKE TAHOE  $                                       750,000
LASSEN  $                                       750,000
LONG BEACH  $                                   2,152,527
LOS ANGELES  $                                 28,377,759
LOS RIOS  $                                   5,496,881
MARIN  $                                       750,000
MENDOCINO-LAKE  $                                       750,000
MERCED  $                                   1,432,326
MIRA COSTA  $                                   1,001,300
MONTEREY  $                                       750,000
MT. SAN ANTONIO  $                                   3,303,542
MT. SAN JACINTO  $                                   2,796,294
NAPA VALLEY  $                                       750,000
NORTH ORANGE  $                                   3,545,110
OHLONE  $                                       750,000
PALO VERDE  $                                       750,000
PALOMAR  $                                   2,502,639
PASADENA  $                                   1,530,994
PERALTA  $                                   2,612,493
RANCHO SANTIAGO  $                                   3,079,153
REDWOODS  $                                       750,000
RIO HONDO  $                                   2,029,191
RIVERSIDE  $                                   3,845,793
SAN BERNARDINO  $                                   2,996,771
SAN DIEGO  $                                   3,652,360
SAN FRANCISCO  $                                   3,555,935
SAN JOAQUIN DELTA  $                                   3,171,131
SAN JOSE-EVERGREEN  $                                   3,432,027
SAN LUIS OBISPO  $                                       790,322
SAN MATEO  $                                   2,243,980
SANTA BARBARA  $                                       750,000
SANTA CLARITA  $                                       750,000
SANTA MONICA  $                                       750,000
SEQUOIAS  $                                   1,880,340
SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINITY  $                                       826,330
SIERRA  $                                   1,142,567
SISKIYOUS  $                                       750,000
SOLANO  $                                   1,269,623
SONOMA  $                                   1,589,949
SOUTH ORANGE  $                                   2,147,410
SOUTHWESTERN  $                                   1,910,648
STATE CENTER  $                                   4,839,117
VENTURA  $                                   2,941,356
VICTOR VALLEY  $                                   1,420,428
WEST HILLS  $                                       750,000
WEST KERN  $                                       750,000
WEST VALLEY-MISSION  $                                   1,143,815
YOSEMITE  $                                   2,677,536
YUBA  $                                   1,284,024
Counties Outside Consortia  $                                       750,000
Totals  $                              158,000,000


Saturday, August 22, 2015

Perspective: George Porter on Acalanes Adult School's "Older Adults Program"

reposted from the Adult Education Matters Blog

Saturday, August 22, 2015

George Porter, a fourteen year veteran teacher of Older Adults classes at Berkeley Adult School, two term chair of the City of Berkeley's Aging Commission, and member of CCAE (California Council of Adult Education) and CFT (California Federation of Teachers), wrote this perspective piece in response to the news about Acalanes Adult School's survival and their Older Adult program.  (You can read the news report here.)


Congrats to Acalanes Older Adult Ed. for surviving, but at what cost and should they be viewed as a model?

First off, please bear in mind that Acalanes Adult Ed. is immediately adjacent to Rossmoor, a close to 10,000 strong, gated, 55+, "active senior" community. This is a highly regarded, award winning development that in years past provided an affordable option for middle-class retirees to relocate. That, though (to my understanding), has been changing rapidly. The City of Walnut Creek - where Rossmoor is located - has gentrified considerably since the development was first built and more recently well heeled baby-boomers looking for a "pied a terre" through the wanderings of early retirement have opted to settle in Rossmoor. This is raising prices to the point where the middle-class is now hard pressed to buy in. Add to this the fact that successful, upper-middle class children are looking for a "safe and comfortable place" to move their aging parents into and that the development fits that bill, it's clear the demographic of such places around California will steadily shift up the economic ladder.

That's not to say that everyone who attends Acalanes Adult Ed. is from Rossmoor but it makes little difference in this case. Close to 27% of Walnut Creek's population is over 65 and, though not all are well off by a long shot, many are and can afford to take classes with fees at the "self-supporting" level. Though estimates vary, it's reasonable to assume the municipalities average home price is pushing $800k and the median household income around $120k - quite high for a community with over 1/4 of the population 65+ and the majority of that group presumably aged out of the workforce. Walnut Creek is also very "white" with only roughly 10% of the population identifying themselves as Hispanic of African-American.

Put simply, if a self-supporting Older Adult program can make it anywhere in California, Acalanes Adult School is the place and I wish them well, just NOT as a model and even in that community I worry about those elders who have and will continue to fall through the cracks. Ms. Sownowski states in the Contra Costa Times article:

"(when) We began the very difficult task of transitioning our lifelong education classes from being state-supported to fee-based... we had a lot of resistance from students because they were used to paying very low fees. We lost students and teachers, but we're happy that now we have a sustainable program."

Her implication is that Acalanes Adult School lost students because they had the nasty expectation of paying low fees and couldn't break this. Doesn't it cross her mind that some might actually have decided they couldn't afford the higher cost? Does she have no understanding about what it means to be elderly and living on a fixed income? Does she have no idea how many seniors, though they put on a good show otherwise, are really only a major expenses or two away from having the modest, comfortable life they are trying to sustain crumble sending them spiraling downward? No idea that they aren't being cheap and stubborn, but cautious and frugal? Apparently not.

As far as the teaching staff goes, I'm sure it wasn't just those who couldn't "make the cut" into the brave new self-supporting world that were lost, but those who saw that their teaching credentials and experience were in danger of becoming meaningless, that their position in the educational system was being "de-professionalized" and that their status as public school teacher would be reduced to that of an independent contractor taking his or her cut of what the market would bear. Older Adult programs lost some of their best teachers, teachers who understandably just couldn't economically or emotionally stay the course - if the Adult Education system as a whole has suffered through a terrible cold these last few years, the Older Adult programs have had pneumonia and this was not relieved but instead exacerbated by those further up the Administrative food-chain constantly sneaking into their sick room with the suffocating pillow in hand. A disheartening time for those involved which had the secondary effect of scaring off the younger instructors needed to take their place in the field.

Again, despite all this, I wish Acalanes Adult Ed. well, but as a model...? If you want to ensure that the relatively healthy (the "active-senior") and wealthy remain that way as they age, it's very fine indeed and few of the wiser, better educated middle class and lower will benefit as well. But for the aging middle class in general that is struggling to get by now, whose numbers and tenuousness of position will increase dramatically over the years ahead and for those less well off it provides nothing. We need to do better if only for the fact that medical costs will rise proportionately to this neglect.

Again, we must do better. The question is how. Subsidization? A sliding scale? Free classes but located at sites or in communities where those not so well off tend the congregate? The list goes on, but problem is too many in the Legislature as well as the Governor simply don't want to engage the issue, have put on blinders and are walking in lock-step towards the self-supporting model. Others in the Legislature aren't even aware there is an issue. Some have been duped into believing that these classes continue to be funded as they always have - there are many statements and articles in the press that fail to mention that this support now needs to come through the school districts' general fund. An unlikely event, especially in the poorer communities where the need is often the greatest!

What to do? First off, make darned sure your representatives in the Legislature are aware of the issue and the FACTS surrounding it. From there, I'd like to know if any of you have ideas about how to solve the problem of making sure the needed educational resources provided by Older Adults programs is fairly distributed and don't eat up a disproportionate amount of the budget. Anybody got a plan?

Let's work together for the common good,

George Porter, 14 year faculty, Berkeley Adult School

- Member of:

   COSAS (Communities Organized to Support Adult School)
   CCAE (California Council of Adult Education)
   Berkeley Federation of Teachers (affiliated with CFT, California Federation of Teachers)

- 2-term chair, City of Berkeley's Commission on Aging  

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Governor Brown's May Revise - Adult Ed

Adult Education

The May Revision maintains $500 million Proposition 98 General Fund to establish
the Adult Education Block Grant program to provide funds for adult education to
school districts and community colleges. This proposed program will coordinate
efforts of various entities — such as schools, community colleges, universities, local
workforce investment boards, libraries, social services agencies, public safety agencies, and employers — to provide education and training more effectively.

The May Revision strengthens this proposal, substantially informed by feedback received from stakeholders.

Significant Adjustments:

• Eliminate Allocation Boards within Each Consortium — Each consortium will be
required to create rules and procedures regarding how it will make decisions, based
on state guidelines that require consortia to seek and respond to input on proposed
decisions from interested stakeholders and to make decisions publicly.

• Require More Robust, but Less Frequent, Planning — Each consortium will develop a comprehensive plan for adult education in its region at least once every three years,
with annual updates.

• Provide Greater Funding Certainty — The Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges will certify maintenance of effort
levels by July 30, and will determine the allocation of any remaining block grant funds
to consortia by October 30. Beginning in 2016, the Superintendent and Chancellor
will provide preliminary allocations to consortia shortly following the release of
each Governor’s Budget, and final allocations, along with preliminary projections
for two future years, shortly after each Budget is enacted. At the consortia level,
allocations to districts will be at least equal to their distribution from the previous
year, with limited exceptions. Further, use of a local fiscal administrator is no
longer required.

• Integrate Adult Education Programs and Funding Streams — The Superintendent
and Chancellor will, by January 31, 2016, develop and submit a plan to distribute
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Title II and Perkins funding using the
consortia structure in future years. School districts, county offices of education,
and community college districts that receive other specified state funds or federal funds for adult education must be participating members of an adult education consortium.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

CCC Student Success Task Force - Final Report 2012

Demise of Adult Education 

Failure to address the basic skills needs of the state will have lasting negative impacts on hundreds of thousands of Californians as well as the state’s economy and social climate. The Governor and Legislature should reexamine the implementation of K-12 budgetary flexibility for adult education funds, and the resulting redirection of funds intended to support these programs, to determine if this practice is consistent with California’s current social and economic needs. As part of the 2009-10 State Budget, K-12 school districts were given the authority to redirect categorical program funding originally appropriated for specified programs. As a result, roughly $634 million in Adult Education funds were made available for school districts to shift to support other K-12 categorical programs that had experienced deep funding cuts. Based on recent estimates, school districts have exercised this option and transferred approximately $300 million out of Adult Education programs. It is important to note that the decision to redirect funds is made at the district level and therefore program implementation varies from district to district. Statewide, the substantial reduction in support for K-12 adult education programs has resulted in increased demand on community colleges to provide education to this population in addition to current students’ needs for noncredit and credit basic skills courses. Unfortunately, due to budget cuts, community colleges do not have the capacity to expand course offerings to meet this increased demand. As a result, large numbers of adults in need of basic skills education have gone unassisted. In addition, the considerable local variation in programmatic decisions by K-12 districts has resulted in a fractured system of basic skills delivery to an already needy yet essential segment of the California population.

Need for Legislative and Gubernatorial Direction 

State leaders need to determine if the current flexibility over K-12 adult education funds is consistent with state economic and social needs and whether these funds should be rededicated to serving basic skills needs. They should also determine whether these programs would best be placed in the K-12 or community college system and provide funding commensurate with the task.*



"Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges recommend that the Board of Governors urge the Legislature to assign responsibility for adult education to the California community colleges but only if sufficient funding to address this mission is provided." (


"Community colleges should be responsible for all adult education in California. The college’s successful and cost-effective record of serving adults seeking basic skills, ESL and work place training is testament to their ability to serve such students. The State of California and its taxpayers would benefit from assigning this task exclusively to our community colleges and eliminating the duplicate services now provided by K-12."

Saturday, May 2, 2015



If you are unable to attend the board meeting on May 6th, please take a moment to send an email to West Contra Costa Unified School District Board members and stand up for our friends at WCCAE.  Kristen Pursley and many of the members of COSAS (Communities Organized to Support Adult Schools) work at WCCAE.  They have done a tremendous amount of work to secure the future of Adult Ed statewide and now they need all of us to support their efforts to save their school.

Here are the email addresses of the board members:

Click here for their phone numbers.

Ask them NOT to close adult ed classes.
Ask them NOT to lay off adult ed teachers.
Ask them NOT to cut the babysitting staff.
Ask them to support their adult ed teachers and provide them with the rights they deserve, as mandated by law.

Tell them that 
and we stand together in the struggle 
to secure the future of K-12 Adult Ed in California.

Telephone: (510) 763-5690 ! Facsimile (510) 763-4255
April 16, 2015

Superintendent Bruce Harter, Ph.D.
West Contra Costa Unified School District
1108 Bissell Avenue, Room 100
Richmond, CA 94801

President and Members of the Board of Education
of the West Contra Costa Unified School District
1108 Bissell Avenue
Richmond, CA 94801

West Contra Costa Adult Education

Re: Rights of Adult Education academic employees

Dear Superintendent Harter and Members of the Board of Education,

     I write on behalf of Adult School Teachers United (“ASTU”), a labor organization
composed of academic employees employed by the District at the West Contra Costa Adult
Education unit. The faculty of the West Contra Costa Adult Education schools are presently not
represented by an exclusive bargaining agent.

     This letter has several purposes. First, to notify the District that the West Contra Costa
Adult Education schools are currently being organized for purposes of representation under the
EERA by the ASTU. This letter provides this notice to assure that the District takes no action to
interfere, restrain, coerce or discriminate against employees in regard to their rights of selforganization under the law.

     Second, to bring to the District’s attention a number of District actions which violate the
California Education Code, and to request that it take prompt and effective action to remedy
these violations.

     Third, to assure that the District understands that it has a legal obligations to meet and
confer with a labor organization representing some of its otherwise unrepresented employees,
West Contra Costa Unified School District even when that organization has not yet achieved exclusive recognition by the District, or certification by the Public Employment Relations Board as an exclusive bargaining agent of Adult School employees.

     Having had extensive experience with the West Contra Costa Unified School District in
prior years,1 I hope that the District will act promptly to rectify various matters discussed in this

I. Organizing of Adult Education Employees

     The ASTU hereby gives formal notice to the District that it is conducting a campaign to
organize the unrepresented West Contra Costa Adult Education academic employees. ASTU
wishes to remind the District that employees are entitled to engage in union organizational
activities on school premises, during non-work time. .

     In addition, we emphasize that the District and its Adult Education division is forbidden
by the Educational Employment Relations Act (“EERA”) from interfering, restraining or
coercing employees in their exercise of their organizational rights. To that end, the District is
prohibited from engaging in surveillance of union activities, and is forbidden from taking action
to discourage employees from choosing to organize a labor organization or from seeking
recognition from the District. This letter is not a demand for recognition as an exclusive
representative, but it does ask that the District acknowledge its statutory duty to confer with
ASTU as a representative of unorganized employees of the Adult Education Division (“Adult

II. The Right of ASTU to Meet and Confer With the District
and to Represent Its Members

     The PERB has consistently affirmed the rights of non-exclusive organizations such as
ASTU to meet with the District, and to receive notice from the District, of policy actions which
may affect the wages, hours or terms and conditions of Adult School employees. Mt. Diablo
Unified School District. (1977) EERB Decision No. 44. Clovis Unified School District (1984)
PERB Decision No. 389 and Santa Monica Community College District (1977) PERB Decision
No. 103; Los Angeles Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 285.

     1 In 1991 I represented the Richmond Federation of Teachers, and various individuals, in
legal action which ultimately compelled the State of California to provide funds to keep the
District operating. See, e.g. Butt v. State of California, 4 Cal. 4th 668 (1992). And in 1994 I filed
suit against the District on behalf of CRTA Protect, a group of retirees who represented nearly
2,000 WCCUSD retired employees. This lawsuit, which resulted in an unpublished appellate
opinion, was eventually settled, restoring much of the lost benefits to the retirees.
West Contra Costa Unified School District

     For instance, in Summerville Elementary School District (1992) PERB Dec. No. 856 16
PERC ¶ 23170, PERB again explained that a “district was obligated to meet and discuss
proposed terms and conditions of employment with [a] union as nonexclusive representative.”

     Former PERB General Counsel and later ALJ William P. Smith cogently summarized the
rights of a non-exclusive union in 1988,

“ EERA guarantees a nonexclusive representative certain statutory rights e.g., the right to
represent its members, the right of reasonable access to school facilities, and the dues
deduction.5 In addition, the Board has held that, so long as no exclusive representative
exists a nonexclusive representative has the right to represent its members in grievance
procedures. See Mt. Diablo Unified School District, et al. (1977) EERB Decision No. 44.
Clovis Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 389 and Santa Monica
Community College District (1977) PERB Decision No. 103.

In Los Angeles Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 285, the Board did not
decide the full parameters of the nonexclusive representatives' rights but held that they
did include the right to meet and discuss subjects that are as fundamental to the
employment relationship as wages and fringe benefits.” Butte Community College
District, 12 PERC ¶ 19144, 1988 WL 1588982 (ALJ William P. Smith 1988)

Another PERB ALJ summarized a non-exclusive Union’s rights in this way:

“PERB has held, however, that in the absence of an exclusive representative, an employer
with knowledge that a non-exclusive representative represents employees affected by an
alleged unilateral change has an obligation to provide, at a minimum, notice and an
opportunity to meet and discuss with the employer subjects that are fundamental to the
employment relationship such as wages and fringe benefits, etc. (See Los Angeles
Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 285 ( Los Angeles ).) Although the
full scope of the duty to consult has not been determined, it appears to require that the
employer consider the employee organization's proposals, but does not require an attempt
to reach a negotiated written agreement. (See San Dieguito Union High School District
(1977) EERB20 Decision No. 22, reversed on other grounds, and Los Angeles. )” San
Luis Obispo County Community College District, 20 PERC ¶ 27128 (1996)

ASTU’s right to represent its members is an enumerated right within section 3543.1(a) of
the Government Code.

As the above authorities explain, the District is legally obligated to meet with ASTU,
upon its request, to discuss pending complaints, described below. While this letter is not a
request to meet, ASTU recognizes that such a meeting may prove beneficial in resolving issues
West Contra Costa Unified School District identified in this letter.

III. The District’s Failure to Properly Classify Adult School Employees
and Provide Letters of Assignment

     ASTU believes that the District has misclassified its Adult School teachers as “substitute”
teachers. In fact, as provided for in the Education Code, nearly all adult education employees are
either temporary or permanent employees, possessing the rights which accompany that status.

     Substitute employees are clearly defined in Education Code section 44917 as being
employees who fill the positions of other employees, who are “absent from service.”. This
section states that,
     “Except as provided in Sections 448881 and 44920, governing boards of school districts
     shall classify as substitute employees those persons employed in positions requiring
     certification qualifications, to fill positions of regularly employed persons absent from
     service.” (Emphasis added.)

     Despite this mandatory requirement, the District has inaccurately classified its regular,
probationary or temporary adult school employees as “substitutes.” This inaccurate designation,
unless corrected, could serve to deprive them of benefits to which they are entitled under various
California laws, such as the Unemployment Insurance Code. Temporary adult school employees
are entitled to unemployment benefits under the case of Cervisi case, (Cervisi v. California
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 208 Cal. App. 3d 635 (1989))

     ASTU is aware that many Adult School teachers have served many years, teaching the
same subjects in the same schools. Some have taught the same class more than 10 years. We
assume the District is aware of this situation.

     Second, the Education Code assures that adult education teachers are eligible for, and
should be classified as, permanent, probationary or temporary, depending on their employment
history. First take a look at section 44925.25:

§ 44929.25. Adult class teachers

When a teacher of classes for adults serves sufficient probationary time as
provided in Sections 44929.20 to 44929.23, inclusive, and Section 44908 to be
eligible for election to permanent classification in that district, his or her
tenure shall be for the service equivalent to the average number of hours per
week that he or she has served during his or her probationary years. In no
case shall the employee be classified as permanent for more than one full-time
assignment. The service for which the person has acquired tenure may be reduced
in conformity with Sections 44955 and 44956.

Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, in a district that has, or in a
district that is one of two or more districts governed by governing boards of
identical personnel that have a combined average daily attendance of 400,000 or
more, as shown by the annual report of the county superintendent of schools for
the preceding fiscal year, no person who is assigned 10 hours or less a week in
adult classes in the district shall be eligible for election to permanent classification
in the district on account of the assignment in adult classes.

Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, any person who is
employed to teach adults for not more than 60 percent of the hours per week
considered a full-time assignment for permanent employees having
comparable duties shall be classified as a temporary employee, and shall not
become a probationary employee under the provisions of Section 44954.

     From what ASTU has been able to determine, the District has been referring to adult
school teachers as “substitutes,” even though they do not substitute for anyone, and have taught
their own classes for years. The ASTU wants to be certain that regular, probationary and
temporary adult school faculty are recognized and classified in these classifications, and not
erroneously treated as “substitues.”

     Next, the District has not been annually notifying adult school teachers of their
classification status, despite a mandatory legal duty to do so. In this regard, the Education Code
is also quite clear. Education Code section 44916 requires that at the time of initial employment,
and annually thereafter, the employee must receive a written statement of employment

The classification shall be made at the time of employment and thereafter in the
month of July of each school year. At the time of initial employment during each
academic year, each new certificated employee of the school district shall receive a
written statement indicating his employment status and the salary that he is to be paid. If
a school district hires a certificated person as a temporary employee, the written
statement shall clearly indicate the temporary nature of the employment and the
length of time for which the person is being employed. If a written statement does
not indicate the temporary nature of the employment, the certificated employee
shall be deemed to be a probationary employee of the school district, unless
employed with permanent status. (Section 44916, emphasis added)

     It appears that this year the District did not provide a written statement of classification to
many, if not all, adult school teachers. ASTU requests that the District promptly come into
compliance with section 44916.

     In prior years, ASTU understands that letters of assignment were usually explicit as to the
contingent nature of the assignment: a minimum number of students was required. Previously,
such assignment letters explained that if that minimum class enrollment could not be sustained,
the class could be closed and the District could not guarantee employment for the teacher within
that semester (nor, implicitly, at any future time.)

      The District Adult Education catalogue continues to be explicit that there are class size
minimums below which a class will be cancelled.

     In order for the District to comply with the law, not only must these letters be issued but
they should be clear about the various contingencies (attendance minimums, funding, program
changes) that might lead to the abrupt termination of the teacher’s services.

IV. District’s Failure to Properly Credit and Apply Sick Leave for Adult School Employees

     Finally, there is the issue of sick leave credit. In accordance with Education Code section
44978, adult education teachers are entitled to and do earn Sick Leave. Section 44978 provides as

Every certificated employee employed five days a week by a school district shall be
entitled to 10 days' leave of absence for illness or injury and additional days in addition
thereto as the governing board may allow for illness or injury, exclusive of all days he or
she is not required to render service to the district, with full pay for a school year of
service. A certificated employee employed for less than five schooldays a week shall be
entitled, for a school year of service, to that proportion of 10 days' leave of absence for
illness or injury as the number of days he or she is employed per week bears to five and is
entitled to additional days in addition thereto as the governing board may allow for
illness or injury to certificated employees employed for less than five schooldays a week.
Pay for any day of this absence shall be the same as the pay that would have been
received had the employee served during the day. Credit for leave of absence need not be
accrued prior to taking the leave by the employee and the leave of absence may be taken
at any time during the school year. If the employee does not take the full amount of leave
allowed in any school year under this section the amount not taken shall be accumulated
from year to year with additional days as the governing board may allow.

The governing board of each school district shall adopt rules and regulations requiring
and prescribing the manner of proof of illness or injury for the purposes of this section.
The rules and regulations shall not discriminate against evidence of treatment and the
need therefor by the practice of the religion of any well-recognized church or
denomination. (Section 44978, emphasis added)

     Despite this section, the District has advised many adult school teachers that they do not
earn, or have no accumulated sick leave, even though such sick leave has been accumulating for
years, as guaranteed by the Education Code. The accumulated hours of faculty should be printed
on some portion of every paycheck. The District has apparently failed to provide an on-going
and easily accessible accounting of sick leave for many many years, in violation of Education
Code section 44978.

     Board policy has historically specified that an adult education teacher accumulated 1 hour
of sick leave for every 17 hours worked. Yet the Adult School Administration has informed
teachers this year that they are not entitled to Sick Leave benefits. The comment, “Subs don’t
get sick leave” has been directed at regular temporary and permanent adult education teachers.

     Veteran teachers have many hours of sick leave accumulated, time which is credited to
their STRS accounts when they choose to retire. Any attempt to deprive them (or any teacher)
of previously accumulated hours is a serious violation of the law. It amounts to a form of wage
theft. Despite these oral statements by the Adult Education administration attempting to deny
eligibility for or accumulation of Sick Leave, there has been no formal notification, explanation
nor policy change in this matter, and no such change could deprive Adult School employees of
their rights to sick leave benefits. Because of the relationship of this leave to their retirement
benefits, it is critical that the District promptly rectify the problem.

V. Conclusion

     Adult school teachers are concerned about the situation described above. Therefore, on
their behalf, I respectfully request that the District review these matters and inform the the
undersigned in regard to what steps it will take to rectify the problems identified in this letter.

     Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss these matters.

                                                                                                  Robert J. Bezemek
                                                                                                  Counsel for ASTU

cc: ASTU
Z:\Documents\0226-Richmond Adult School\Let WCCUSD re u issues 04-07-15 FINAL.wpd