Saturday, May 2, 2015

DEFEND ADULT EDUCATION!


WEST CONTRA COSTA ADULT ED NEEDS OUR SUPPORT!

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.


LAW OFFICES OF
ROBERT J. BEZEMEK ROBERT J. BEZEMEK
PATRICIA LIM A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
DAVID CONWAY THE LATHAM SQUARE BUILDING
1611 TELEGRAPH AVE., SUITE 936
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
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
letter.

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
School”).

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
status:

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
follows:

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.

                                                                                                  Sincerely,
                                                                                                  Robert J. Bezemek
                                                                                                  Counsel for ASTU

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





Thursday, April 9, 2015

Analysis of Assembly Bill 1112 (Lopez)



Date of Hearing: April 8, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
 Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
 AB 1112 (Lopez) – As Amended March 26, 2015
 [Note: This bill is doubled referred to the Assembly Higher Education Committee and will be heard by that Committee as it relates to issues under its jurisdiction.]

SUBJECT: Adult education: consortia: parenting education: family literacy education 

SUMMARY: Authorizes adult programs, California Community Colleges (CCC) noncredit courses and classes, and the adult education regional consortia, established pursuant to Education Code (EC) Section 84830, to provide family literacy education. Specifically, this bill

1) Expands parenting education provided by adult education programs administered by school districts and CCC noncredit courses to include family literacy education, which may include support to children and schoolaged youth with limited English proficiency backgrounds in the households of participating adults. 

2) Specifies that the grant funds provided to regional consortia to create and implement adult education plans shall include parenting education, including, but not necessarily limited to, parent cooperative preschools and classes in child growth and development and parent-child relations, and family literacy education, which may include support to children and schoolaged youth with limited English proficiency backgrounds in the households of participating adults. 

EXISTING LAW

1) Authorizes the establishment of adult school programs and specifies eligibility criteria, programmatic requirements, and the manner in which school districts' adult education revenue limit per unit of average daily attendance (ADA) shall be determined. 

2) Authorizes the following classes and courses to be offered by the school districts and county superintendent of schools for apportionment purposes from the adult education fund: 

a) Adult programs in parenting, including parent cooperative preschools, and classes in child growth and development, parent-child relationships, and parenting. 
b) Adult programs in elementary and secondary basic skills and other courses and classes required for the high school diploma. 
c) Adult education programs in English as a second language. 
d) Adult education programs for immigrant eligible for educational services in citizenship, English as a second language, and workforce preparation classes in the basic skills of speaking, listening, reading, writing, mathematics, decisionmaking and problem solving skills, and other classes required for preparation to participate in job specific technical training. 
e) Adult education programs for adults with disabilities. 
f) Adult short-term career technical education programs with high employment potential. 
g) Adult programs for older adults. 
h) Adult education programs for apprentices. 
i) Adult programs in home economics. 
j) Adult programs in health and safety education. 

3) Prohibits state apportionment to be made for any course or class not specified in law. 

4) Authorizes the governing board of a school district to require a fee. For a class in English and citizenship, a fee may be charged only until July 1, 2015. Prohibits the total of the fees required and revenues derived from the ADA from exceeding the estimated cost of all such classes maintained. 

5) Defines "adult" as a person 18 years of age or older for a person who is not concurrently enrolled in a regular high school program. 

6) Charges the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (CCCCO) and the California Department of Education (CDE) to jointly implement an adult education planning process; authorizes the CCCCO and the CDE to distribute $25 million to regional consortia to develop plans with the shared goal of better serving the educational needs of California's adult learners; and, specifies that the following five areas are to be addressed in the plans: 

a) Elementary and secondary basic skills, including classes required for a high school diploma. 
b) Classes and courses for immigrants in English as a second language, citizenship, and workforce preparations. 
c) Education programs for adults with disabilities. 
d) Short-term career technical education programs with high employment potential. 
e) Programs for apprentices. 

FISCAL EFFECT: The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as a state-mandated local program. 

COMMENTS: Background. Adult education in California is part of a large, complex, and diverse multi-provider system. It is a vital and integral part of the larger educational system that provides adults with the skills and education that enable them to earn a high school diploma or a general educational development (GED) certificate, become United States citizens, acquire specific job skills, learn English, and/or become independent and productive parents and members of their community. Adult education is provided by a number of delivery systems, but the two main providers are school districts and the CCCs. 

In 2008-09, K-12 adult education programs enrolled 1.2 million adult learners in almost 300 adult schools throughout California. The 2012-13 budget allocated $635 million for the adult education categorical program. Adult education schools offer the following ten programs: 

1) Adult Basic Education; 
2) English as a Second Language; 
3) High School Diploma or Adult Secondary Education, including General Education Development certification; 
4) Citizenship Preparation; 
5) Career Technical Education; 
6) Adults with Disabilities; 
7) Health and Safety; 
8) Parent Education; 
9) Home Economics; and, 
10) Older Adult. 

Due to budget problems, from the 2008-09 through 2014-15 fiscal years, local educational agencies (LEAs) were allowed to use approximately 40 categorical programs funds for any educational purposes. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, schools districts diverted between 50 to 60% of the adult education program funds for other general fund uses. 

In 2013, the Governor proposed and the Legislature passed a new K-12 funding system that replaced revenue limits with a new base grant – the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). LCFF incorporated most categorical program funds into the base grant and eliminated the categorical programs. School districts choosing to continue their adult education programs would do so using their base funds. AB 86 Regional Consortia. Also in 2013, the budget provided $25 million for the development of regional consortia comprised of CCC and K-12 school districts for the purpose of creating plans to integrate existing programs and determine how best to serve adult students within regions throughout the state (AB 86 (Budget Committee), Chapter 48, Statutes of 2013). AB 86 specified that the plans developed by the regional consortia shall only include the provision of the following programs: 

1) Elementary and secondary basic skills (GED); 
2) Classes and courses for immigrants (citizenship, English as a second language); 
3) Education programs for adults with disabilities; 
4) Short-term career technical education programs; and, 
5) Programs for apprentices. 

Excluded are four programs that are authorized to be offered through adult schools, including 1) parenting education; 2) programs for older adults; 3) home economics; and 4) health and safety programs. The Governor's 2015-16 budget proposes to allocate $500 million for the adult education block grant, which will be used to fund the programs included in the AB 86 regional consortia plans. This bill adds parenting education to the courses to be offered through the regional consortia plans and expands parenting education to include family literacy education, with special focus on support for adults with children and schoolaged youth with limited English proficiency. The bill also expands parenting education programs previously offered through adult education categorical funds and noncredit adult education courses offered by CCCs to include family literacy education. 

What is family literacy education? According to the author, this bill is modeled after family literacy programs provided by federal Workforce Investment Act, Title II funding and through the California's Community-Based English Tutoring (CBET) programs. The goal of these programs is not only to provide English instruction to parents, but also to provide parents with the skills that will enable them to assist their children do better in school, especially children with limited English proficiency. For example, the CBET program, which was previously a $40 million categorical program, may teach parents how to help their children with reading, writing, listening, speaking, study skills, homework and effective parenting technique (source: San Bernardino Adult School). Parents must agree to read to their children, help their children with homework and talk with their children about school. A 2011 report by the CDE titled "Linking Adults to Opportunity" stated that "two years of data analysis showed significant improvement among the children whose parents participated in these Adult Education programs. In the Oakland Unified School District, children of CBET parents averaged 19 percent gain on the California English Language Development Test." 

Budget trailer bill. In order to expand the programs funded through the regional consortia, the budget trailer bill that will implement the $500 million for the proposal adult education block grant will have to include parent education and family literacy. The author may wish to consider making this request through the budget process. 

Arguments in support. The author states, "Due to the elimination of the parent education spending categories, parents no longer have access to family literacy education and the CBET programs through adult education. This bill looks to reinstate parent education as an eligible funding category as studies have shown that children whose parents participated in these programs showed academic improvement." 

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION

Support 

None on file 

Opposition 

None on file 

Analysis Prepared by: Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087


Thank you, Assemblywoman Lopez!
PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR AB112!

Saturday, February 28, 2015

COMMUNITY IS IMMUNITY

Below is a petition in support of Adult Ed.'s broad mission written by George Porter, adult ed advocate and instructor at Berkeley Adult School.  

Here is what you can do to stand up for community education:

   1) READ THE PETITION

   2) Send an email to Alliance4CAS@gmail.com stating that you agree with the position.  You can copy and paste this:  

I agree with George Porter's petition requesting that designated funding be provided for the following adult ed programs:

  1. Adult Basic Education
  2. English as a Second Language
  3. Adult Secondary/GED
  4. Citizenship
  5. Career/Technical Education
  6. Adults with Disabilities
  7. Health and Safety
  8. Home Economics
  9. Parent Education
  10. Older Adults

Please include your name, city of residence (actual address if you feel comfortable with that) and any personal credentials that you feel are relevant. For example:

AT THE LEAST -

Jane Doughtery
resident, Oakland CA

IF YOU WANT TO PUT MORE -

Jane Doughtery
1234 Liberal St.
Oakland, CA

- 39 year Oakland resident
- retired city planner
- homeowner
- taxpayer
- member of (name of organization)

   3) Upon receipt of your email, we will add your name and information to the list of supporters.



______________________________________________

       Want to sign on? 

Just follow the instructions above. 

The petition is below.


SUPPORT ADULT EDUCATION'S BROAD MISSION - provide designated funding for all 10 programs

   We, the undersigned, are alarmed and disappointed that the Governor's
proposed budget fails to provide the designated funding needed to
support the Adult Education system's broad mission and strongly feel this
will be detrimental to the weal of the State as a whole. Though we fully
appreciate the need for increased focus on basic skills and workforce
development, it is myopic and counterproductive to simply ignore our
long-lived investment in educational programs that promote effective
participation by adult learners in a wider variety of circumstances.

   The value of programs that help ensure an active, healthy, economically
savvy and civically engaged older population (Older Adult), of programs that
instruct parents regarding our most up to date understandings of child-
rearing methods and offer opportunities to practice these (Parenting),
of programs that provide consumer and financial education as well as
help develop the computer and communication skills needed to fully
participate in our digitalized age (Life Skills) should not be
underestimated. There is much more to good citizenship than simply
gathering the skills needed for effective workplace participation then
paying the taxes on the wages these garner. From the pocketbook to
interpersonal relations to civic volunteerism to the voting booth,
the programs that the Governor's budget now ignores have historically
promoted the wise, personal and social decisions that are needed if
California is to remain strong.

   On 3/5/13 a bill was introduced (SB173) that would have narrowed the
mission of non-credit, Adult Education to basic-skills, immigrant
integration and workforce development. The bill failed to make it
through committee until that provision was removed and it was further
amended in Appropriations and on the Assembly floor in ways that
encourage sustaining the broad goals. On 9/25/14 the Governor signed
off on this final version and, in good faith, at the very least the
current level of support for all 10 programs should be indefinitely
maintained through designated funding. The need to shift the emphasis
of resources in Adult Ed. has already been accomplished during the
flexible funding grant period. Indeed, if anything the programs now
missing from the proposed budget suffered too greatly during that time and
policy guidelines should be developed that will allow these to wisely grow.

   Clearly these educational programs help create strong, healthy and
productive civically engaged citizens who, in turn, work together to
create strong, healthy and productive civically engaged communities,
municipalities, counties and state. The legislative intent of
Education Code Section 84830 is "to expand and improve the provision
of adult education". This section, too, was signed into law by the
Governor and nothing in it suggests that any of the funding for these
already drastically reduced programs should be cut further still. For
all Californian's sake see the world through two eyes not just one,
give these programs their due, give them the designated funding they
deserve.

visit a4cas.org for more information
there are many links on the Resources page of our website

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Celebrate Your Successful Students – Submit Your Nomination Today

from the February 2015 OTAN Administrators' Digest 

Annually, OTAN honors adult education students who have made positive contributions to the community and met their goals as a result of attending an adult education program.

Two Student Succeed honorees, Grely Mazariegos and Saul Godinez, were recognized at the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) 2014 Leadership Summit in San Diego. Both students attended Tamalpais Adult School and were nominated by their teacher Jaemi Naish. Read more on page 2 of the current issue of OTAN Online Connection, and view OTAN-created videos of these and other student success stories on the Adult Education Students Succeed Web site External link opens in new window or tab.

The 2015 honorees will be selected from nominations submitted before April 15, 2015. Administrators and instructors are encouraged to nominate their outstanding students by visiting the Adult Education Students Succeed site located at www.adultedlearners.org External link opens in new window or tab. From the Home page, select the Nomination tab, which outlines the selection criteria and displays the nomination form External link opens in new window or tab. All nominations will be considered and winners will be judged by their achievements as a result of their participation in an adult education program. Both the students and adult school programs are recognized through this process. OTAN looks forward to honoring your successful students!

 is a leadership project of the California Department of Education, Adult Education Office.


Grely Mazariegos (second from left) shows off her engraved plaque. 
Pictured from left to right: OTAN's Branka Marceta, Grely, and OTAN's Blair Roy and Penny Pearson.

Friday, January 9, 2015

Governor Brown's Proposed Budget for 2015-16

Adult Education

Historically, K‑12 school districts and community colleges have provided adult
education instruction. However, there was not effective coordination in all jurisdictions
and regional workforce needs were not a focus. As a result, the state has an inefficient
and in some places redundant system that is not always structured to best meet the
needs of adult learners. Strengthening the link between the state’s education and
workforce systems is crucial to California’s growing economy.

The 2013 Budget Act provided $25 million Proposition 98 General Fund for two‑year
planning grants to consortia of community college districts and school districts in
70 regions. The planning builds upon the adult education infrastructure in schools and
community colleges. In 2013‑14 and 2014‑15, K‑12 districts also have been required to
maintain the 2012‑13 level of spending for adult education and career technical education
(CTE) programs from funds received through the Local Control Funding Formula.

The Budget provides $500 million Proposition 98 General Fund for the Adult Education
Block Grant, which is an integral component of the state’s workforce development
strategy, as discussed in the Investing in California’s Workforce Chapter. The block
grant will fund programs in elementary and secondary basic skills, classes and courses
in citizenship and English as a second language for immigrants, education programs
for adults with disabilities, short‑term CTE programs linked to occupations with high
employment potential, and programs for apprentices. To be successful, it is imperative
that these programs be well aligned with the economic needs of each region, and that
they provide clear pathways to in‑demand jobs, as determined by regional labor
market information. The program will promote ongoing collaboration amongst different
providers and with entities that serve the populations that benefit from adult education;
namely, workforce investment boards, social services departments, and correctional
rehabilitation agencies.

In order for adult education programs to be well coordinated and linked with the
economic needs of their region, the Administration proposes that each consortium
designate an allocation board responsible for planning and allocating block grant funds.
Each consortium will form an allocation committee consisting of seven members
who represent community colleges, K‑12 districts, other adult education providers,
local workforce investment boards, county social services departments, correctional
rehabilitation programs, and one public member with relevant expertise. Each allocation
committee will coordinate with regional partners to ensure various adult education
funding streams are integrated, such as block grant funds, other K‑12 and community
college resources, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act allocations, and other
federal funds. Each allocation committee will determine how to allocate block grant
funds for direct instruction, support services, and administration of its consortium (which
will be capped at 5 percent). Each consortium will report annually to the Chancellor
and Superintendent on progress towards fulfilling its adult education plan using all
resources available. These reports will inform distribution of block grant funds in
the future.

The Chancellor of the Community Colleges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction
will jointly approve allocations of funds, with an emphasis on providing funding to those
regions with the greatest adult education needs. Funding allocations approved by the
Chancellor and Superintendent will be distributed to providers as determined by their
allocation committees. In the initial year, to ease the transition, funding will be provided
directly to K‑12 school districts in the amount of the K‑12 districts’ maintenance of effort
for adult education—as jointly determined by the Chancellor and the Superintendent.
Further allocations will be distributed according to the local allocation committees.
A final report from the two‑year planning process will be provided by March 1, 2015.
This report will inform the accountability framework for delivery of adult education and
remaining policy decisions, such as how fees are charged for similar programs delivered
by different providers.

Career Technical Education

High‑quality CTE programs provide students, particularly those at risk for dropping out,
with valuable career and college readiness skills, and are a critical piece to the overall
workforce investment strategy of the Administration, as discussed in more detail in the
Investing in California’s Workforce Chapter. Prior to the adoption of the Local Control
Funding Formula, the state provided more than $500 million annually to support a
collection of CTE categorical programs, most notably the Regional Occupational Centers
and Programs (ROCPs). The 2013 Budget Act collapsed almost all of this previous
categorical funding into the Local Control Funding Formula in the form of a 9‑12 grade
span adjustment, with requirements on districts in their Local Control and Accountability
Plans to describe how they intend to meet the career technical education needs of their
students consistent with state‑adopted standards. Additionally, the 2013 Budget Act
included a two‑year maintenance‑of‑effort requirement for local educational agencies to
maintain their existing levels of spending on ROCPs, providing them with additional time
to structure more long‑term service delivery arrangements. Further, both the 2013 and
2014 Budget Acts provided $250 million in one‑time Proposition 98 funding to support
the Career Pathways Trust Program, which provides one‑time competitive grants to
create innovative programs and partnerships linking rigorous academic standards to
career pathways in high‑need and high‑growth sectors of the economy.

Given the complexity and relatively resource intensive nature of starting and updating CTE
programs, the Budget proposes $250 million in one‑time Proposition 98 funding in each
of the next three years to support a transitional CTE Incentive Grant Program. Unlike the
existing Career Pathways Trust Program, school districts, county offices of education
and charter schools receiving funding from this new transitional program will be required
to provide a dollar‑for‑dollar match, and priority for these state funds will be given to
local educational agencies applying in partnership with other local educational agencies
to offer regional programs. To maintain eligibility for funding under the CTE Incentive
Grant Program, recipients will need to demonstrate positive results across a spectrum
of outcome measures, including high school graduation rates, CTE course completion
rates, pupils obtaining industry‑recognized credentials and certificates, the number of
pupils achieving gainful employment in relevant occupations, and the number of pupils
progressing to postsecondary education. This program is intended to accelerate the
development of new and expanded high‑quality CTE programs during the next three
years and provide opportunities for program growth.