As the number of states offering tax credits as an inducement to investment in education continues to grow, California lawmakers may at long last be prepared to extend serious consideration to similar legislation.  With a cumulative state operating surplus projected at $30 billion over the course of the next five years, the time may be right for members of the Legislature to contemplate modest tax relief measures for Californians who promote the common good by making personal investments in K-12 education.

Two current bills may well have served as "conversation starters."  The first, AB 943 (Nestande) proposed the provision of corporate tax credits for contributions to:

Whatever you may think of Ted Olson, you must acknowledge that the man is a formidable lawyer.  It was Mr. Olson who represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court case that sealed Mr. Bush's 2000 election to the presidency.  (President Bush subsequently nominated Mr. Olson to become the nation's Solicitor General, a position he held from 2001 to 2004.)  Most recently, Mr. Olson teamed up with David Boies, the lead opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore, to bring suit against California's Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.  And once again, he prevailed.  As an attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Mr. Olson had already argued a dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court prior to his appointment as Solicitor General.  If you should find yourself involved in a legal dispute, you probably don't want to see Ted Olson seated on the other side of the bar.  But that's precisely the unenviable position in which California's teachers unions currently find themselves.

In May, 2012, Mr. Olson and his associates filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in which the State of California, Governor Jerry Brown, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, the State Board of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and the Alum Rock (San Jose) Union School District were named as defendants.  (The Oakland Unified School District was added to the list of defendants three months later.)  The complaint, filed on behalf of a group of students, alleged that various provisions of the California Education Code effectively deprived plaintiffs of the constitutional guarantee of "substantially equal opportunities for learning."  A copy of the Vergara v. California complaint can be accessed, here.
 
In a nutshell, the plaintiffs argued that exposure to good teachers is critical to favorable learning outcomes, and that existing laws make it more likely that children in need of the best teachers will be exposed to a disproportionately higher share of ineffective instructors.  Among the current laws targeted by the suit are the granting of tenure, or "permanent employment," within a two-year period, procedural requirements that make it exceedingly difficult to terminate teachers on the basis of performance, and the "last-in, first-out" policy governing teacher layoffs.

Opposition quickly followed.  The state defendants and the Alum Rock Union School District filed separate demurrers, asking the Superior Court to dismiss the case.  After the Court ruled in favor of permitting the case to proceed, defendants contested the ruling, which was subsequently upheld by the State Court of Appeals.  Nearly a year ago, the Superior Court set the trial date in Vergara v. California for January 27, 2014.

Up to this point, the teachers unions were not directly involved in the proceedings.  That would change in early May, 2013, when a Superior Court judge granted the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers permission to intervene as defendants. A press release issued by Students Matter, an advocacy group supporting the plaintiffs, welcomed the involvement of the unions:

With the teachers unions now engaged, plaintiffs proceeded to two of the school districts as defendants.  Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment in which it was claimed that AB 375, a bill authored by Assembly Education Committee Chairperson Joan Buchanan, contained teacher dismissal provisions that would render Vergara v. California moot.  The bill was subsequently passed by the Legislature, but vetoed by Governor Brown, and in December, 2013, the Court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, again permitting the case to move forward to trial.

Last month, the defendants made a final attempt to avoid trial by filing petitions seeking relief from denial of summary judgment.  When, on January 14, a state Court of Appeals rejected the petitions, it became something of a certainty that Vergara v. California would proceed to trial on January 27.  Indeed, it has, and the trial is expected to take at least 20 days with a parade of high profile witnesses being called to testify, including State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, State Board of Education President Dr. Michael Kirst, Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Dr. John Deasy, Stanford professors Linda Darling-Hammond and Eric Hanushek, and others.

The stakes for the unions are high, as Vergara v. California strikes at the heart of their purpose: affording job security to members.  Here, the unions have been more than merely effective.  According to the StudentsMatter website, over the course of the past decade fewer than two teachers per-year have been terminated for unsatisfactory performance.  Considering that the state employs more than 280,000 certificated teachers, one wonders whether the unions might not be hoisting themselves on their own petard.  Either there is no such thing as an incompetent public school teacher, or current laws makes their dismissal next-to-impossible, as critics claim.  Nevertheless, the plaintiffs have a high bar to surmount.  EdSource's John Fensterwald, who provides an excellent comprehensive overview of the case, here, describes the challenge, succinctly:
 
To get a taste of the sort of push-back emanating from the unions and their supporters, a commentary authored by California Federation of Teachers' Early Childhood/K-12 Council President Gary Ravani, and  published by EdSource is representative.  In, "Declaring war on teachers' rights won't improve children's access to a sound education," Mr. Ravani argues:

If you'd like to see and hear Ted Olson present the issues, this video will be of interest.  It's a keynote address he delivered at the National Summit on Education Reform, held in Boston last October, followed by a Q & A session moderated by former U.S. Secretary of State Dr. Condoleeza Rice.  Mr. Olsen, who received his own formative education in California's public schools, is clearly passionate about his involvement in the case.  He doesn't mince words when declaring:  "we can't do anything about it through the Legislature in California because it is controlled by the people who have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is.  It will not change legislatively, so we have decided...to do something about it in court."  Mr. Olsen's latest day in court is now at hand.  The nation will be watching, and so will we.

 

The California Private School Advisory Committee, K-12 oversees the provision of multi-day professional development workshops for private school educators.  These high-quality-at-low-cost programs are funded in part by Title II, Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and are provided in cooperation with the California Department of Education. 

Assessing Student Progress 

in the Standards-Based Classroom 

 

A two-day workshop for private school teachers

administrators, and curriculum directors of grades K-12

   

Presenter:  Carolyn Coil, Ed.D.  

 

Dates:         February 19 & 20, 2014  

Times:        8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., each day 

 

Location:

                   San Diego Academy   

                   2800 E. 4th St.  

                   National City (San Diego Area), 91950 

 

Registration Fee:  $50.00 per person if postmarked or faxed on or before February 5, 2014.  Otherwise, $65.00 per person.  Fee covers all three days of the program and includes materials, continental breakfast, and lunch.  

 

 

 

About the Workshop:

This program consists of a two-day face-to-face workshop with Carolyn Coil PLUS three webcasts that can be used for follow-up and share workshop insights with others in your school. Participants will learn about various types of assessments and the purposes of each. You will see practical ways to design units and assessments using the Common Core State Standards in conjunction with a variety of differentiation strategies.

 

BONUS - Webcast follow-up sessions!   

 

In addition to the two-day face-to-face session, Carolyn will also be presenting three 20-minute video segments that can serve as a follow-up for session attendees and a discussion starter for those colleagues who were unable to attend the program.  The three video segments will encourage and support implementation of ideas presented during the face-to-face sessions.  (A webcast link will be emailed to attendees 2 weeks after the workshop. Attendees will be encouraged to take a "Train the Trainer" role and lead the follow up discussions with their colleagues.)

 

About the Presenter:

 

Carolyn Coil, Ed. D., is an internationally known presenter and educator. An enthusiastic, motivating, and energetic speaker, she has worked in the field of education for over 30 years. She has a master's degree in gifted and special education and a doctorate in educational leadership. Carolyn presents workshops for teachers and administrators on a wide variety of topics, including Assessment Strategies, Gifted Education, Differentiation, Common Core State Standards, Motivating Underachievers, and Developing Critical and Creative Thinking. She has taught at all grade levels and has been an Adjunct Professor at several universities.

 

Carolyn has presented at international, national, state, and local conferences and has presented workshops throughout the United States and in many countries throughout the world. She does many types of teacher training in individual schools, with small groups of teachers and with larger organizations.

 

She is the author of a number of best-selling educational books published by Pieces of Learning and Mini-pieces of Learning. She also presents online courses for Knowledge Delivery Systems.

 

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice has released this year's edition of The ABCs of School Choice.  The compendium, which can be downloaded in its entirety, here, includes a primer on school choice arrangements, descriptions of existing school choice programs on a state-by-state basis, and rankings of programs on the basis of inclusiveness and purchasing power.  A print edition of the volume may be requested, here.

School choice arrangements include vouchers, education savings accounts, tax credit scholarships, and individual tax credits/deductions. According to the document's contents, 48 current school choice programs operate in 23 states and the District of Columbia. While the graphic is somewhat cluttered, a glimpse at the volume's one-page listing of rankings suggests that inclusiveness and purchasing power are inversely related.  That is to say, the greater the number of people permitted to receive the benefit provided by a particular school choice program, the smaller the monetary value of the benefit, and the greater the dollar value, the lesser the number of beneficiaries.


Senator Lamar Alexander (R. - Tennessee) has introduced a bill that would effectively condense virtually all federally funded programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into what would amount to block grants to states.  The bill's provisions would permit states to allocate federal dollars directly to low-income parents, who would be allowed to use the funds to pay private school tuition, enroll children in a public school outside their home area, pay for tutoring, purchase home school supplies, or use the funds, estimated to average $2,100 per family, for other related purposes.  States opting to participate in the new arrangement would receive a degree of relief from ESEA's current provisions.  They would continue to be subject to the federal education law's testing and reporting requirements, but would no longer be subject to punitive measures. Education Week's Politics K-12 blog reports the development, here.

Passage and signature of Senator Alexander's bill are a long shot, and if his bill was to become law it's highly unlikely that California would opt to exercise the parental allocation provision.  Participation could put an end to Title I and Title II, Part A (Improving Teacher Quality) programs, as they currently operate, and place federal assurances of private school equity in a state of limbo.  So, while the new legislation contains a very promising element, it doesn't come free of risk.


BJE - Builders of Jewish Education has just launched an attractive new website geared for teens seeking service-learning and volunteering opportunities.  The online resource, dubbed BJE Impact, is described as "a resource for teens who want to make a meaningful impact in their community, for educators who want to deepen community service into powerful learning experiences, and for organizations looking to cultivate passionate teen volunteers."  The website seeks to match young volunteers with qualified organizations seeking assistance in a diverse array of areas that include animal care/rights, arts and culture, disaster relief, education, elder care, environment, homelessness, literacy, special needs, substance abuse, violence prevention, and a number more. 

One of the site's many nice touches consists of a scalable map showing the location of specific service-learning opportunities.  Another noteworthy feature is the site's "Share and Reflect" page, where teens are invited to express their personal service-learning reflections and learn from the experience of others.  Though still in the beta-testing stage, BJE Impact not only looks good, it does good!


Each year, the National Education Association assigns letter grades to members of Congress on the basis of the teachers union's estimation of their voting record.  The ratings aren't limited to legislators' votes on K-12 education issues, and take into account lawmakers' positions on such matters as immigration, taxation, and workplace- related legislation.  You can check out the grades given to California members of the U.S. House of Representatives, here.  (California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein both received a grade of "A.")

There's not much middle ground as far as the grades go.  Of the Golden State's 53-member Congressional delegation, 38 U.S. Representatives received a grade of "A," 2 were given a "C," one received a "D," and 12 were outright flunked.  In case you're wondering, the group consists of 38 Democrats and 15 Republicans...and no member of the GOP received a higher-than-average grade.  Education Week's Politics K-12 blog reports the story, here.

Novelist David Feldman makes a living writing books with titles such as When Do Fish Sleep?, Do Penguins Have Knees?, What Are Hyenas Laughing At, Anyway?, and How Do Astronauts Scratch an Itch?  Such questions address what Mr. Feldman calls "imponderables," or mysteries of everyday life. Should Mr. Feldman be searching for new material, here's another "imponderable":  Why does the teachers union oppose a bill that helps teachers?
 
That's exactly what the California Teachers Association did in objecting to SB 693, a bill authored by veteran lawmaker Lou Correa, a Democrat State Senator from Santa Ana.  Cognizant that teachers routinely spend money out-of-pocket for classroom supplies and materials that aren't furnished by schools, and wishing to support fulltime teachers during the course of their first three years on the job, Senator Correa introduced legislation that would offer a combination of encouragement and tax relief.  His bill proposed a state income tax credit of up to $250 for qualifying teachers filing as individuals, or $500 for eligible married teachers filing jointly.  The credit could be taken in addition to a similar federal deduction.

Because the tax credit proposed by SB 693 would become available to public and private school teachers, alike, CAPSO supported the bill, and I had an opportunity to testify on its behalf at a recent meeting of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.  During my remarks, I asked the committee members to imagine that I was a young public school teacher who was holding a dollar in my hand.  I then told them that, as lawmakers, they had an option.  They could take the dollar out of my hand and direct it to the State Treasury from where some portion of it might, or might not find its way to my classroom.  If a portion of my dollar did end up finding its way to my classroom, it might, or might not be spent in a manner deemed by me to be most desirable. 
 
The other option was to pass SB 693, which would have placed the choice in my hands.  That is to say, the lawmakers could have left the dollar in teachers' hands and permitted them to decide whether to send it to the State Treasury, or not.  Of course, if they should decide to hold on to the dollar, they must spend every cent of it on the purchase of materials and supplies for their classrooms.  That was the deal.  And that being the case, what SB 693 was really about was trust.  Could teachers be trusted to spend a small amount of money in a manner that is at least as responsible and beneficial as would be the case were the same dollars to be spent by the state?
 
Apparently, the state's largest teachers union, the California Teachers Association thought not.  It killed the bill.  And although the union was brazen enough to offer public testimony in opposition when the bill was heard by its policy committee, the assault that led to its demise was not conducted in the light of day, but through behind the scenes maneuvering that pressured Senate Appropriations Committee Chairperson Kevin de Léon into withholding the bill from a vote, thereby causing its failure to meet a deadline for advancement.  This, after the measure had been passed by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, before which the union offered testimony, by a bipartisan vote of 6-0.  Clearly, the bill was held by Senator de Léon because it had enough votes to win passage to the Senate floor.

The next edition of the CAPSO Midweek E-Mailer will be published February 19, 2014.