A Message from Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León and California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon

FROM CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE LEADERS

SACRAMENTO – California Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) and California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) released the following statement on the results of the President election:

Today, we woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land, because yesterday Americans expressed their views on a pluralistic and democratic society that are clearly inconsistent with the values of the people of California.

We have never been more proud to be Californians.

By a margin in the millions, Californians overwhelmingly rejected politics fueled by resentment, bigotry, and misogyny.

The largest state of the union and the strongest driver of our nation’s economy has shown it has its surest conscience as well.

California is – and must always be – a refuge of justice and opportunity for people of all walks, talks, ages and aspirations – regardless of how you look, where you live, what language you speak, or who you love.

California has long set an example for other states to follow. And California will defend its people and our progress. We are not going to allow one election to reverse generations of progress at the height of our historic diversity, scientific advancement, economic output, and sense of global responsibility.

We will be reaching out to federal, state and local officials to evaluate how a Trump Presidency will potentially impact federal funding of ongoing state programs, job-creating investments reliant on foreign trade, and federal enforcement of laws affecting the rights of people living in our state. We will maximize the time during the presidential transition to defend our accomplishments using every tool at our disposal.

While Donald Trump may have won the presidency, he hasn’t changed our values. America is greater than any one man or party. We will not be dragged back into the past. We will lead the resistance to any effort that would shred our social fabric or our Constitution.

California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future.

Statement from California Legislative Leaders Pro Tem Senator De Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon:

Hoy despertamos sintiéndonos extranjeros en tierra extraña, porque ayer los estadounidenses expresaron sus opiniones sobre una sociedad pluralista y democrática que es claramente inconsistente con los valores de la gente de California.

Nunca nos hemos sentido más orgullosos de ser Californianos.

Por un margen de millones de votos, los californianos rechazaron abrumadoramente la política alimentada por el resentimiento, la intolerancia y la misoginia.

El estado más grande de la unión y la locomotora de la economía de nuestra nación ha demostrado que también tiene su conciencia más tranquila.

California es - y debe ser siempre - un refugio de justicia y oportunidades para las personas de todos los orígenes, lenguas, edades, y aspiraciones - independientemente de su apariencia, dónde vivan, qué idioma hablen, o a quiénes amen.

California, por mucho tiempo, ha sido un ejemplo a seguir para otros estados. Y California defenderá a su gente y nuestro progreso. No vamos a permitir que una elección sea un revés para el progreso de generaciones en la cima de nuestra histórica diversidad, el avance científico, la generación económica y un sentido de responsabilidad global.

Estaremos comunicándonos con los funcionarios federales, estatales y locales para evaluar cómo una Presidencia Trump podría afectar potencialmente los fondos de programas estatales en curso, las inversiones creadoras de empleos que dependen del comercio exterior y la aplicación de las leyes federales que afectan los derechos de las personas que viven en nuestro estado.

Estaremos utilizando al máximo el tiempo durante la transición presidencial para defender nuestros logros, usando cada herramienta a nuestra disposición.

Aunque Donald Trump haya ganado la presidencia, no ha cambiado nuestros valores. Estados Unidos es más grande que cualquier hombre o partido. No seremos arrastrados de vuelta al pasado. Lideraremos la resistencia a cualquier esfuerzo que destruya nuestro tejido social o nuestra Constitución.

California no era una parte de esta nación cuando comenzó su historia, pero ahora somos claramente los encargados de mantener su futuro.

State Assembly Education Committee

The email contact links for Assembly Members won't work if you live outside the district they represent.  You can use the following format to contact a legislator outside your district: firstname.lastname@asm.ca.gov

Here is the contact information for the Education Committee:

Patrick O'Donnell (Chair)Dem - 70 Contact Assembly Member Patrick O'Donnell

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 4166, Sacramento, CA 94249-0070; (916) 319-2070

Kristin Olsen (Vice Chair)Rep - 12

Contact Assembly Member Kristin Olsen

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 4144, Sacramento, CA 94249-0012; (916) 319-2012

Young O. KimRep - 65 Contact Assembly Member Young O. Kim

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 4177, Sacramento, CA 94249-0065; (916) 319-2065

Kevin McCartyDem - 7 Contact Assembly Member Kevin McCarty

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 2160, Sacramento, CA 94249-0007; (916) 319-2007

Miguel SantiagoDem - 53 Contact Assembly Member Miguel Santiago

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 5119, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053; (916) 319-2053

Tony ThurmondDem - 15 Contact Assembly Member Tony Thurmond

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 5150, Sacramento, CA 94249-0015; (916) 319-2015

Shirley N. WeberDem - 79 Contact Assembly Member Shirley N. Weber

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 3123, Sacramento, CA 94249-0079; (916) 319-2079

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 Source: http://aebg.cccco.edu/For-AEBG-Grantees

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.)

A PERSPECTIVE ON ACALANES ADULT SCHOOL'S "OLDER ADULT PROGRAM":

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  

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.