“Delaine is the former State Superintendent for Public Instruction,” the website explains. On Eastin’s watch, from 1995 to 2003, the California Department of Education gave more than $20 million in federal funds to a consortium of community-based organizations (CBOs), primarily for English-language instruction for immigrant children. 

Assistant Superintendent Robert Cervantes, a longtime advocate of English as the key to economic advancement, who oversaw the program, found that the CBOs lacked the required nonprofit status and had falsified records. CBO bosses spent much of the money on jewelry, luxury automobiles, houses in Washington, D.C., and political activism.

Superintendent Eastin responded by demoting and reprimanding Cervantes and fellow whistleblower James Lindberg. Both took legal action and received cash settlements. Lindberg’s was reduced but the damage had been done. Yet the CBO scandal does not appear on Eastin’s web page about her time as superintendent. 

It was hardly her only lapse. On Eastin’s watch, California’s education spending rose from about $5,500 per pupil to more than $9,000. Even so, test scores languished at alarmingly low levels and Eastin opposed reforms aimed at raising standards and expanding parental choice.

In the Assembly Eastin sought to make charter schools indistinguishable from regular government schools. As a candidate for governor Eastin advocated a moratorium on new charter schools, a meaningful reform currently under fire, as Thomas Sowell notes in Charter Schools and Their Enemies. 

Eastin claims that our educational system “was designed in a way meant to uphold white supremacy and to protect the privileges of wealthy elites.” Democrats, she adds, “must commit to eliminating the structures that perpetuate racism in our society.” Yet she does not identify the structures that perpetuate racism or explain how they are to be eliminated. She opposed Proposition 209, which banned racial and ethnic discrimination in state education, employment, and contracting. Eastin does not perceive the voter-approved measure as a way to end anti-black racism. 

Naturally, she’s a staunch supporter of the California Teachers Association and laments declining union membership, but she does not tackle the state’s high taxes or the onerous regulatory regime. She also wants college to be “tuition free again” and she calls for “single payer” health care for all.

All told, Eastin’s campaign differs little if at all from those of progressive Democrats nationwide. For California Democrats, however, one item deserves close attention. 

Eastin says she will have “zero tolerance for sexual harassment” and will uphold “accountability as it relates to sexual harassment by anyone.” This may be a reference to former state party chair Eric Bauman, who resigned in 2018, facing allegations that he “sexually harassed and assaulted” staffers at party events and touched both male and female staffers “in ways that made them feel uncomfortable.” 

Bauman gave way to union activist Rusty Hicks, who recently has become controversial in a different way. Hicks calls the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom a “coup” led by “right-wing conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, anti-vaxxers and groups who encourage violence on our democratic institutions.” 

Eastin wants Hicks’ job, but where she stands on the recall is not clear from her campaign website. Democrats will decide whether the self-proclaimed “Champion for Education” is the right call for state party chair. 

The post Is State Democratic Party Chair Candidate Eastin a “Champion for Education”? appeared first on The Beacon.

Ten California teachers and a teachers’ group, Christian Educators Association International, brought the Friedrichs case. The plaintiffs want to stop paying mandatory dues to the CTA, claiming that all activities of the union are “inherently political.” Since 1977, employees who are represented by a public-sector union can opt-out from paying union dues for political activities such as union opposition to a ballot initiative or union support for a legislative candidate. But in the 25 non-Right-to-Work states including California, these employees must still pay “agency fees” to cover the cost of union representation activities: negotiating contracts covering pay, benefits, and working conditions.

According to EdSource:

For California teachers, about $600 of their average $1,000 annual dues goes toward their fair-share [agency] fees; it is divided among their local union, the California Teachers Association, and the National Education Association for their expertise and representation. The remaining money pays for lobbying and campaigning at the local, state and federal levels.

Some allege that unions exaggerate representation costs in order to collect more money from employees who opt out.

The plaintiffs in Friedrichs argue that they should be able to opt out of paying agency fees, too, because collective bargaining to negotiate compensation packages is also political: these actions shape government budgets and influence how much money is left over for other public services. The 10 teachers who sued the CTA said:

Public-sector unions’ collective-bargaining efforts constitute political speech designed to influence governmental decision-making. . . . In this era of broken municipal budgets and a national crisis in public education, it is difficult to imagine more politically charged issues than how much money cash-strapped local governments should devote to public employees.

The plaintiffs have a strong case, especially given how government pension costs have devoured local government budgets in California and elsewhere.

When unions successfully lobby for higher government employee pension benefits, or negotiate for lower government employee contributions to pension funds, these actions increase the share of government budgets devoted to pension costs. When more money goes to pensions, less money can go to other public services. About 25 percent of San Jose City’s budget is devoted to paying for employee pension costs, 18 percent of San Mateo County’s budget goes to pensions, 17 percent in Ventura County, and 15 percent in Orange County. Money that pays for pensions is money not available for other city and county services.

The same pension burden impacts school districts. In California, contribution rates for school districts to pay for teachers’ CalSTRS pensions will rise from 8.25 percent of payroll in 2014 to 19.1 percent by 2020, a 132 percent hike. These higher pension payments will hit all school districts statewide for 31 years, until 2046. A new Moody’s report shows that aggregate contributions from local school districts will increase to $6.4 billion in 2021 from $2.3 billion in 2015, a nearly threefold increase. Money that goes to teacher pensions is money that isn’t available to repair school buildings and hire new teachers for the instructional needs of children.

As I detail in my book California Dreaming: Lessons on How to Resolve America’s Public Pension Crisis, government pension costs crowd-out other core city and county services. Money that goes to pensions is money that isn’t available to maintain parks, keep libraries open, fill potholes, and hire and retain police officers and firefighters. In San Jose, a house right across from a fire station burned down because that station’s fire trucks had been mothballed to pay for rising city pension costs. This decision to sacrifice public safety was clearly immoral, but it was also a political decision shaped by financial realities. And union bosses often negotiate contracts with school board members and local lawmakers that these unions helped elect through campaign donations, votes, and volunteering, an obvious conflict of interest.

Clearly, government labor unions, through their successful efforts to raise pay and pensions of government employees, have changed the mix of public services offered in California communities, and other communities across the country. Union negotiating activities, therefore, embody political choices that are often controversial and have long-term political implications. It is impossible to separate in any meaningful way unions’ negotiating activities from unions’ political activities. All union activities are inherently political. And workers have a First Amendment right to not pay any dues or fees to a union to fund political activity they might not agree with.

If the Friedrichs plaintiffs win, the decision would ban mandatory union dues for any purpose. Payments to unions would be voluntary. It would be poetic justice if union pension greed were the ultimate undoing of union financial strength. There is still the question of how broad a ruling it could be. The Court decision could squeeze union treasuries across the country if it applies to all states, but it could be limited to only California, or only to the CTA. Stay tuned. The Supreme Court will hear the case for 80 minutes on January 11, 20 minutes more than usual. Expect a decision by the end of June.

The post Friedrichs v. CTA Could End Compulsory Union Dues appeared first on The Beacon.

Charter schools won big in Georgia and Washington. Georgia voters passed an amendment allowing a statewide commission to approve independently operated charter schools, not just school districts, which can be hostile to chartering schools that compete with them for students and funding. The measure is the result of a 2011 state Supreme Court decision that ruled Georgia’s Charter School Commission ran afoul of local control requirements.

Apparently the fourth time’s the charm in Washington State. At long last voters approved a plan allowing 40 charter schools in the state over the next five years, making Washington the 43rd state, including D.C., to adopt charter school legislation.

But policies affecting teachers and unions were a mixed bag. Michigan voters rejected constitutional amendment making collective bargaining a right–widely considered a test case for expansion to other states, California in particular.

Speaking of the Golden State, the California Teachers Association (CTA) is breathing a sigh of relief now that voters have decided it’s okay for union bosses to deduct political activities dues directly from teachers’ paychecks without having to get their express permission first. Guess all that time away from the classroom to campaign really paid off—for the CTA, that is, not students or taxpayers. Meanwhile voters in Idaho rejected making unions’ collective bargaining with school districts more timely, open, and transparent. Teacher performance pay plans were also a no-go in Idaho—along with South Dakota. (See here, too.)

One of the most interesting ballot measures came from Florida. Voters there rejected an amendment to the state constitution that would have prevented the state from barring individuals from choosing religiously-affiliated service providers of education and healthcare. This measure would have overturned Florida’s Blaine Amendment and paved the way for K-12 education vouchers, which were deemed selectively unconstitutional in 2006. Florida voters should know better.

Besides the Sunshine State’s own voucher program for students with disabilities, nearly 11 percent of the country’s 5.8 million school-age children with special needs are already attending private schools of their parents’ choice at public expense under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Fully, 2,600 of those children are Floridians. (See the “Parentally placed in private schools” column in Table B3-2 here.) Additionally, more than one-third of all college Pell Grant recipients (3.4 million nationwide) use public dollars to attend private and proprietary colleges and universities. Close to 40 percent of Florida Pell Grant recipients (more than 232,000) use public dollars to attend non-public postsecondary institutions. (See Table 21 here.)

Back in Idaho, voters also rejected a variety of reforms intended to bring education into the 21st century, including improved transparency, complete with fiscal report cards for school districts, and expanded online learning options for students. This reform component was the most controversial of the state’s three education propositions. The state teachers union had a field day claiming that online learning would replace teachers with laptops, which would be ruined by klutzy kids spilling soda on the keyboards (starting at 1.05 minutes). Looks like nostalgia for the 19th century factory education model won out. Well, “Esto perpetua,” as they say in Idaho.

More money for schools is always a ballot box favorite, and voters in California and Oregon passed tax measures for additional K-12 funding. Apparently, more than $11,000 per pupil just isn’t enough for voters along the Pacific Coast. Arizona voters, however, said ‘No’ to making a 2010 temporary sales tax permanent for additional K-12 funding, so schools there will have to get by with just $9,600 per pupil.

As they say, all politics is local. So, too, is education—and it doesn’t get more local than a parent with every possible education option for his or her child. Parents and voters across the country will have different ideas about which policies are best, and that’s as it should be. Certainly the last thing we need in education is a one-size-fits-all approach.

That said the elephant in the classroom is how many otherwise intelligent people go completely soft over education funding measures. They suspend all disbelief that government schools could possibly curb their profligate ways, such as hiring legions of district and school staff and building Taj Mahal facilities. (For some eye-popping figures, scroll down to the bottom of the table here to the “Capital outlay” and “Interest on school debt” rows.)

That same suspension of disbelief helps explain several higher education ballot results.

Citizens in five states decided whether to take on more than $1 billion in bonding debt to pay for campus construction and renovation projects. Voters in Arizona, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Rhode Island said ‘Yes’ to a combined $995 million worth of bonding. Maine was the lone state whose voters said ‘No’ to debt by rejecting an $11.3 million bond measure.

Obviously nobody wants students attending dilapidated campuses. Yet it’s worth considering better ways to finance what should be ongoing regular maintenance and operations. Responsible business owners plan ahead by setting aside funds for future growth. Colleges and universities can do the same.

On average, public two- and four-year institutions receive nearly $30,000 per undergraduate in 2012 dollars, consisting of roughly: $9,700 in self-generated income and gifts; $7,500 in state, local, and federal appropriations (excluding student loans); $6,800 in government grants and contracts; and $5,500 in tuition and fees.

Included in that $30,000 average is close to $1,000 worth of appropriations, grants, and gifts just for capital projects per undergraduate. So why are taxpayers being asked to spend more in the first place, much less in a way that adds significant amounts of debt interest?

A recent analysis indicates that over a fifteen-year period postsecondary administration grew more than twice as much as instructional staff. This is significant since well over 100 postsecondary mid-level and senior-level administrative and non-teaching positions command six-figure salaries, compared to a handful of faculty positions that do. We should finance colleges and universities in ways that incentivize them to use existing resources better instead of coming back for more...plus interest.

Rather than states directing general (non-capital) lump-sum appropriations to institutions, those funds should be directed to undergraduates in the form of annual performance grants. Students who complete their programs on time would not have to pay back their grants; those who don’t, would. Directing just the state appropriation share to students (about $6,300 per undergraduate) would incentivize them to find the best programs at the best price. Importantly, the onus would be on institutions to keep their costs and tuition prices down over the long term—in part by saving for future capital projects rather than asking to use the taxpayer credit card.

Bonds were not the only higher education issue decided by voters this week. Among the more interesting measures was a plan to allow two Washington state universities to invest part of their reserve funds in private companies. Ideas like this one may sound sensible at first, but Washington voters clearly had concerns about the wisdom of government entities betting on winners with taxpayer dollars. (Arizona rejected a similar proposal in 2004.) And let’s not forget, the only ones who truly invest are the people who actually earned the money and accepted the risk. Government entities don’t “invest.” They spend other people’s money. And if one of their “investments” goes bad, representatives of those same government entities would come back to the taxpayers asking for more money. Conversely, even if those government entities did happen to pick a winner, there’s no guarantee that they’d ask taxpayers for less funding in the future.

Admissions and related student residency issues rounded out the higher education ballot initiatives—and are likely to ignite ongoing debate and legal action. Maryland voters passed the Dream Act Referendum. A noteworthy change included in this act is extending the time for honorably discharged veterans to qualify for in-state tuition rates, from one year to four years. This is an important step. A change to the GI Bill last year has left college-going veterans in 38 states in a massive financial lurch. Some 250,000 veterans returned to their home states after serving their country to find that their in-state colleges and universities had mis-classified them as out-of-state students. This means those veterans are being charged about twice as much as they should be.

A controversial component of Maryland’s Dream Act is making undocumented immigrants eligible for in-state tuition rates under certain conditions. Opponents object that this is preferential treatment. Yet in 2011 the Supreme Court rejected that argument, letting a similar California law stand because the in-state rate is based on students graduating from in-state high schools, not their citizenship. Currently, a dozen states have similar laws granting in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants. Seven states ban the practice.

Oklahoma is one of those states, and this week voters there approved a measure to end preferential treatment based on race and gender in college admissions and other areas. In recent weeks the University of Oklahoma has been accused of preferential admissions practices based on applicants’ race. So too has the University of Texas, Austin. Decades of federal efforts to end discrimination, including 40 years of Title IX, through preferential treatment based on gender, race, or external circumstances does not end discrimination. Nor does it further equal opportunity for all.

And equal educational opportunity for all requires that voters make informed decisions, not abdicate responsibility over education to government, along with a blank check.

The post States’ Education Ballot Results Roundup: The Good, the Bad, and the Really Expensive appeared first on The Beacon.