A bill currently making its way through the California Legislature aims to add a "school-year long kindergarten readiness grade level" to the state's public education system.  The newly proposed grade level, to be an expansion of Transitional Kindergarten (TK), will be phased in over a five year period, and will be available to all four year old children by the 2018-2019 school year.  The underlying legislation, SB 837, is authored by Darrell Steinberg (D. - Sacramento), a powerful and capable lawmaker who serves as President pro Tempore of the California Senate.  The current text of SB 837 can be found, here.

The bill has already won passage out of the Senate Education Committee by a vote of 6 to 1, with two members - one Republican and one Democrat - abstaining.  An analysis of the bill prepared by veteran committee consultant Lynn Lorber concludes with a listing of multiple supporters that include the California State PTA, Junior Leagues of California State Public Affairs Committee, League of Women Voters of California, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, United Way of California, and others. 

In his introduction of the bill at the Senate Education Committee hearing, Senator Steinberg characterized SB 837 as a work-in-progress, conceding that it would, undoubtedly, be subject to further amendment.  It is, perhaps, for this reason that no formal opposition to the bill was noted in the committee analysis (though several organizations, including the Association of California School Administrators, testified in opposition during the committee hearing). 
 
The relative absence of formal opposition at this stage of the bill's life cycle should not be confused with an absence of widespread concern over a number of the measure's provisions.  In a recent letter to Senator Steinberg, CAPSO highlighted five issues of concern to the state's broadly inclusive private K-12 school community:
 
1.  A "Mixed Delivery" Model that isn't Mixed

In both written and spoken statements, Senator Steinberg has expressed support for a "mixed delivery model," that includes a role for private providers of TK.  The proposed legislation would permit public school districts and charter schools to enter into contracts with local private entities for purposes of providing TK.  However, the legislation states:

"Transitional kindergarten services provided by a public local agency or a private local provider shall be under the exclusive management and control of the governing board of the school district, or governing body of the charter school, that administers the contract."  (Proposed Education Code Section 48005.55(a)(2))

 

In CAPSO's view, when a private entity is placed under "the exclusive management and control" of a governmental entity, it can no longer be said to be private.  Therefore, the "mixed delivery" system established by SB 837 would exist in name only. 

 

2.  Excessive Regulation of "Private" Providers

SB 837 would subject those private providers of early education wishing to serve as contractors for the provision of TK to a number of requirements that go well beyond current state regulations to which private K-12 schools are subject.  For example:

• Private providers of TK will be required to staff every TK classroom with a minimum of one teacher and one paraprofessional. (Proposed Education Code Section 48005.30(g));
• All TK teachers  and paraprofessionals, including those employed by private providers, will be required to hold state issued teaching credentials. (Proposed Education Code Section 48005.30(b));
• SB 837 will (effectively) require private providers of TK to consider all teachers and paraprofessionals full-time employees, regardless of the number of actual hours of work performed.  (Proposed Education Code Section 48005.30(f)(1)); and,
• The bill's provisions will require every private provider of TK to be regarded as a "public school employer" for purposes of establishing the collective bargaining rights of employees. (Proposed Education Code Section 48005.50) 

3.  Standardization in Place of Pluralism

Creating a downward extension of California's public education system will almost certainly lead to greater standardization and uniformity in lieu of pluralism and diversity in early education.  SB 837 calls for the creation of state standards for TK.  The adoption of state standards will, inevitably, lead to state-prescribed assessments.  To effectively implement the standards so as to enable favorable assessment outcomes, the state will, undoubtedly, prescribe standard training regimens.  As CAPSO's letter observes:

 

4.  No Place for Religious Providers

As state contractors, private religious providers of early education would be required to render TK programs devoid of religious symbols, teaching and practice.  In other words, they would cease being religious providers in practice. 

It's important to note that SB 837 would not require any private provider to enter into a contract with a local public school district of charter school.  Private providers will be at liberty to continue operating their programs as they do at present.  However, they will not be permitted to call those programs 'Transitional Kindergarten', and will face competition from tuition-free TK programs conducted under governmental auspices just down the street, or around the corner.  In CAPSO's view, forcing religious (and other) providers of early education to relinquish their respective identities in order to improve their sustainability is to impose a cruel choice upon many existing providers of high quality programming.

5.  Limited Choice for Low-Income Families

SB 837 would provide all low-income families with access to Transitional Kindergarten.  That is a good thing.  The measure will not, however, help such families access alternatives to TK.  Indeed, SB 837 can be expected to increase the cost of access to private alternatives, as private providers lose clients to tuition-free TK classes and will be forced to increase fees to cover costs while maintaining the same level of quality. As is true of K-12 education, real choice will remain largely confined to the affluent.

In a 6-2 decision that has direct implications for California, the United States Supreme Court has ruled it permissible for voters in Michigan to determine whether or not race can be considered as a factor when determining college admissions.  The High Court's decision upholds California's Proposition 209, the controversial 1996 ballot measure that amended the state constitution so as to prohibit government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity in public employment, contracting and education.

The case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, upheld the constitutionality of a Michigan ballot propostion that amended the state's constitution to prohibit the use of race-based preferences as part of the admissions process for state universities.  The provision withstood a legal challenge at the District Court Level, only to be overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decision has now been reversed by the Supreme Court. 

The High Court's decision might have been closer had Associate Justice Elana Kagan not recused herself for having been involved in the case while serving as U.S. Solicitor General.  Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.  In what came as a surprise to some, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate concurring opinion. 

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy pinpointed the Court's central finding:  "This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved.  It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court's precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters."
 
In what the New York Times termed "the longest, most passionate and most significant dissent of her career," Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissent, in which she was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that was lengthier than the other opinions, combined.  "This case is not about 'who may resolve' the debate over the use of race in higher education admissions," said Justice Sotomayor, who, in a departure from standard practice summarized her dissent from the bench. "I agree wholeheartedly that nothing vests the resolution of that debate exclusively in the courts or requires that we remove it from the reach of the electorate. Rather, this case is about how the debate over the use of race-sensitive admissions policies may be resolved-that is, it must be resolved in constitution-ally permissible ways."  The atmosphere in the chamber as the Court's ruling was announced and Justice Sotomayor's response was presented, is described by observer Mark Walsh, writing for ScotusBlog, here.
 
Several commentators noted that Justice Sotomayor produced what might best be described as a "zinger" served up as a retort to Chief Justice Roberts' well known view that, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor recast that memorable quote in the following manner: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination."  Taking note of the jab, the Chief Justice responded in his written concurrence: "people can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it ... does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate."

Links to full ScotusBlog coverage can be found, here.  A blog piece that is critical of the Court's opinion, authored by scholars Liliana M. Garces, William C. Kidder and Gary Orfield, which appears on the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy's blog, can be found, here.  Charles Krauthammer argues that the Court got it right, here.  Additional reactions to and views of the decision can be found, here.

Californians constantly hear that the Golden State ranks near the bottom of the ladder when it comes to per-pupil public school funding.  Indeed, in Education Week's most recent ranking of the 50 states and District of Columbia, California placed 50th, with only Utah spending fewer dollars per student.  The story is reported by EdSource, here.  According to the data, which show spending during the 2010-11 school year, California spent $8,341 per student, $3,523 below the national average of $11,864.

Both EdWeek and EdSource are highly reputable sources, which makes the figures reported by an equally venerable purveyor of data somewhat confusing.  The United States Census Bureau provides figures for the same school year that paint a considerably different picture.  This table places California 31st among states, with total per-pupil revenue amounting to $11,048.  (We are spending it all, aren't we?)  The U.S. government figure comes to nearly a third more than the total reported by Education Week. 
 
According to the government's figures, which state spends the most?  Actually, no state does.  It's the District of Columbia, at a trim $29,029 per pupil.  (Yes, you read that correctly.)  Such largesse makes one wonder about the veracity of the saying, you get what you pay for. 

 

Date:  Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Time: 10 AM - 11 AM

Presented by: Heather DeBlanc

Workshop Fee   

Consortium Members: $55
Non Members: $75

 

Large employers who are subject to the Affordable Care Act's Employer Mandate (i.e. 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents) will be required to file annual information returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) starting in 2016 (with regard to data from 2015). The IRS requires additional information reporting for employers with self-insured group health plans. This webinar will provide details regarding the information that employers must report, the available alternative reporting methods, and the individual statements that employers must provide to employees in connection with the reporting. We will also discuss the logistics relating to reporting, the penalties and how the reporting relates to the employer mandate.

 

For additional information and online registration, click here. 

 

 

Opportunity Schools Announces Teacher Training Institute

 

The program's first day presenter is Rick Morris, an award-winning educator, author, and specialist in the field of classroom management and student motivation. 

 

Back by popular demand for days 2 & 3 is Vicki Newman, awarded the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics Teaching.  She will be focusing on "Making Common Sense of the Common Core State Standards For Mathematics".

 

Read more about the training in this flyer.  Additional information, including a registration form can be obtained, here.  The registration deadline is June 1, 2014. 

You know what they say about the road to hell, so let me simply come out with it: SB 837 is paved with good intentions aplenty.  When viewed from 30,000 feet, the measure, authored by California State Senator and President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D.-Sacramento) proposes to make high quality early education available to every four year old, while providing working parents with the ability to place their children in tuition-free kindergarten-readiness programs. At the same time, participation in Transitional Kindergarten (TK) programs will remain optional, meaning that parents who regard their home as the most appropriate environment for their four year old children will remain free to keep their young ones at home.  And private providers of early education can continue to offer their distinctive programs, reflecting different understandings of child development and philosophies of education, if they so choose.
 
That's the view from 30,000 feet.  Upon closer inspection one learns that the devil is, once again, in the details.  And one need not descend to ground level in order to discern some disquieting flaws.  Indeed, looking through a microscope can be just as misleading as taking a telescopic view.  So, let's descend to an altitude of, say, 10,000 feet - far enough away to avoid preoccupation with easily fixed cracks and potholes, but sufficiently distanced to view bigger picture policy flaws.
 
From this private school advocate's point of view, SB 837's chief danger reposes in its insidious transmogrification of what it means to be 'private'.  You and I may hold somewhat differing understandings when it comes to what is entailed by the term, but I'd venture that however varied our views, we would almost certainly agree that whatever being 'private' may mean it does not include being subject to complete control by a government entity.  Yet that is exactly what SB 837 does in establishing that a "private local provider [of TK services] shall be under the exclusive management and control of the governing board of the school district..." contracting for the provision of services.
 
This column has often commented on protestations that the public education system is being privatized.  The American Federation of Teachers, for example, identifies "contracting with a private corporation to provide services, such as managing public schools" as an instance of privatization. If the private management of public schools constitutes 'privatization', does it not follow that the public management of private entities can only be regarded as de-privatization?  This is exactly what SB 837 proposes.  If enacted in its current form, the new law will de-privatize any provider or early education wishing to contract as a purveyor of Transitional Kindergarten.
Then there's the issue of timing.  The "road" Senator Steinberg is trying to pave runs perilously close to a "superhighway" that's currently under construction by Governor Jerry Brown.  No, not the high-speed rail line, but the Local Control Funding Formula.  The LCFF is nothing short of a massive overhaul of the manner by which state funding for public K-12 education is allocated. According to the Governor, the new system will significantly simplify the way state funds are parceled to local public school districts.  But there's been nothing simple about the adoption of regulations accompanying the new formula, with districts slated to receive proportionately more money under the new arrangement duking it out with those that will get proportionately less, before a battle weary State Board of Education.

Senator Steinberg will soon be termed out of office.  He'd clearly like to see SB 837 passed as a legacy bill.  As was noted in the article above, he's a powerful and capable lawmaker.  At the same time, the Local Control Funding Formula is a signature achievement for Governor Brown.  There may be too many practical, procedural and political details yet to be sorted out in order to secure the implementation of the LCFF to allow for the introduction of what amounts to a  tectonic shift in the base of the public education system, with its own accompanying set of headaches.  And Governor Brown has a weapon at his disposal that Senator Steinberg can only hope to acquire at some point in the future: a veto.

Ron Reynolds

The next edition of the CAPSO Midweek E-Mailer will be published May 28, 2014.