We are in the final 24-48 hour countdown to make a difference in whether the Legislature includes additional funding for adult education under the Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG). We can still make a difference, but we need your help immediately!
Please call your respective Senator and Assemblymember’s Sacramento and District offices TODAY urging them to let the Budget Committees know that their community and constituents strongly support more funding to support adult education and the beneficial, life-changing impact it has on our students and their families. To identify the best numbers to call, please use http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/ to identify your legislators and use the links provided to obtain their contact information to make your calls to their offices.
Your talking points should be concise and straightforward.
“As your constituent, I urge you to convey strong support to the Budget Committee to include increased funding for adult education under the Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) in this year’s budget.”
Pass the word and make your calls ASAP! Strength in numbers!
About 15 years ago, I had one of those students you never quite forget come into my English as a Second Language class. He stood out from his classmates just by being a man of working age, since the class was held in the afternoon, and most of the students were women and a few retired men. But it was his personality that made him memorable; relentlessly cheerful, voluble, talkative and friendly, he struck me as a textbook case of the kind of student my language learning theory classes had taught me would learn another language easily. His love of talking, and desire to talk to everyone, carried him easily past inhibitions about making mistakes; he jumped at any chance to communicate. At times I had to put a check on his enthusiasm to keep him from dominating the class, but on the whole he was a good influence, drawing the other students out.
In some respects, the strategy of simply charging into communication at every opportunity seemed to have served him well, as my textbooks had said it would. He had been in the U.S. a long time, and had picked up all the English he knew on the job. My class was his first foray into formal English instruction, and for all I know it was the last. He only had time to study formally because he was recovering from a work-related injury, which is not an uncommon reason for immigrants who have been working in the U.S. for a long time to finally take an ESL class. He had a large vocabulary and could certainly make himself understood as long as his listener could follow his rapid-fire delivery. Fans of the idea that formal language instruction is unnecessary because anyone can learn a new language as long as they are fully immersed in it, might have pointed to him as an example.
But there were gaps. It took him three days to complete a reading assessment I, as a somewhat inexperienced teacher at that time, thought would be appropriate for him based on his verbal fluency, so obviously his literacy lagged well behind his speaking ability. In speaking, he couldn’t get a third person singular pronoun right to save his life, mixing up “he” and “she” with a wild abandon that could make his speech very confusing for a native English speaking listener. These errors were very hard to correct, since they had been with him for a long time and he had learned to work around them.
And there were other gaps, I was to find, with potentially more serious consequences than getting your listener mixed up as to who you are talking about. One day we were going over traffic signs, an activity that by some standards would probably be considered too basic for him based on his oral fluency. But when I explained the sign that means “railroad crossing”, from the back of the classroom I heard a familiar jolly roar, “So that’s what it means!”
The community where I teach is criss-crossed with railroad tracks, and still haunted by the deaths, in the 1970s, of a whole family of refugees who were killed by a train as they tried to cross the tracks.. My student had been driving to work and on errands around this city for years, without knowing what the railroad crossing sign meant.
I think of this student from time to time amid all the retrenchment of adult education to focus ever more narrowly on workforce preparation and College and Career Standards. By some of the measures now being applied to adult education programs, I suppose he would be considered a failure. Although he came to class faithfully every day for several months, he didn’t “persist.” After those few months were over, he dropped out of sight, as many students do. I don’t know whether he recovered from his injuries enough to return to his former occupation, or had to take up another line of (probably less well paid) work. He certainly wasn’t in my class long enough to prepare for a new career, much less prepare to go to college (if he would have been interested in that) with all the catching up he had to do in the area of reading. Yet in the brief time he was coming to class, he learned something that could have saved his life. California’s current reorganization of adult education under the Adult Education Block Grant has no way to recognize the importance of outcomes like this.
Workforce preparation, especially workforce preparation for immigrants, has certainly been a key goal of adult education in California since its beginnings in the mid-19th Century; the first adult education program in the state provided vocational training for immigrant students. But the growth of adult education in the state was bound up with a broader mission that included what we would now call immigrant integration. Next year marks the centennial of the appointment of the first state adult school superintendent, Ethel Richardson, in 1919. But her title was not “adult school superintendent” but “Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction in Charge of Americanization.”
The idea that immigrants need to be “Americanized” is of course cringeworthy now, and the Americanization Movement of the early 20th Century had some distinctly unsavory features, such as punishing immigrants for using their native language. The movement arose at a time not unlike our own, when anxiety about immigration was high, at that time due to a shift in immigration patterns which brought many more immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were seen as more “foreign” in terms of culture, language and religion than previous waves of immigrants.
The movement was a mixed bag; along with its coercive aspects, it included features like unions helping their members take out citizenship papers and schools and community-based organizations (the YMCA was a significant participant) offering education for immigrant students on a wide range of subjects. With all its faults, the movement at least recognized that education could help immigrants adjust to their new life. It is almost certainly because of the growth of adult education spurred by the Americanization Movement that so many U.S. families can point with pride to a grandparent or great grandparent who learned English in night school. In addition to English, early 20th Century instruction for immigrants included government, citizenship, and even topics like nutrition. After California passed the Home Teacher Act in 1915, school boards could even hire teachers to go to students’ homes to instruct them in these subjects.
The Americanization Movement shaped adult schools in California in ways that persist even now. To this day, English as a Second Language is the largest program in most adult schools, and adult schools provide the bulk of ESL instruction for adults in the state. There is even a faint echo of the mission of the adult schools under Americanization in the language of the Adult Education Block Grant, which provides that the AEBG may fund “Programs for immigrants in Citizenship, ESL and workforce preparation”.
In 1921, the California legislature passed a law requiring high school districts to offer Americanization classes when requested by 25 or more people. This law remained in force into the 21st Century, though “Americanization” was eventually changed to “ESL”. Since these classes were not compulsory, the law seems to assume that immigrants wanted these classes and would request them.
The popularity of adult ESL classes today bears this out; immigrants don’t want to be “Americanized”, but they do want to be oriented to life in the United States. At the school where I teach, we polled our ESL students about their goals. Certainly, many were interested in working, either immediately or some time in the future, although many more than we expected weren’t sure what kind of work they wanted to do or would be able to find. But the vast majority of students identified understanding life in the United States better and being able to communicate with English-speaking people as goals; these goals were chosen more often than any other.
This result indicates that an overly-narrow focus on workforce development, or even college and career, in ESL classes could backfire. Adult school attendance is not compulsory; in order for a class to succeed, you have to give the students what they came there for. In a typical ESL class, the students will have a variety of work related goals, or even no work related goals, but most of them will have in common a desire to become better oriented to life in the United States and be able to communicate with the English speaking people all around them. If they don’t see progress in this regard, they may leave class before they are able to formulate definite workplace goals or develop workplace skills. If ESL programs are to succeed, they need to provide students with opportunities to interact with native English speakers and have real-world experiences with using English, in addition to helping them develop skills for the workplace.
We need to listen to our students; what they most want to learn may surprise us. For a long time, my students asked me about the meaning of the word “so”. When I explained that it expressed cause-and-effect, they always seemed dissatisfied with the answer, and I thought I just wasn’t explaining it well enough. But then one day a student gave me an example, and I realized they were asking about the bratty teenage “so”, as in:
“You have homework to do!”
Since we all like multiple choice tests so much, I have a multiple choice test for you parents out there. Which would you rather know about the word “so?”
“So” expresses cause-and-effect; a more academic choice would be “thus” or “therefore.”
Your kid is giving you sass.
If you answered “a” I’m not sure I believe you.
Success in the United States means many things. Our immigrant students have whole lives here, not just jobs. Even good workforce preparation needs to take the whole person into account. In designing programs for immigrant adults, we need to keep adult education’s historic mission of immigrant orientation in mind as well as workforce development.
The following post from the Adult Education Matters blog by Cynthia Eagleton of San Mateo Adult School http://adulteducationmatters.blogspot.com/ explains why immigrant integration is an key function of adult schools and suggests ways you can advocate for including it in the Adult Education Block Grant.
It’s time to contact your local legislators and Governor Jerry Brown and advocate for including immigrant integration as part of AEBG – the Adult Ed Block Grant.The challenges that the Trump administration have brought upon us have also brought a deeper understanding of the value of immigrants in California and the importance of supporting immigrant integration through Adult Education.
Both the California Immigrant Policy Center and CCAE – the California Council of Adult Education – are advocating for this important change to happen.
CIPC is continuing our advocacy for equity within California’s adult education and workforce development programs and funding at a local and statewide level. In 2018, we are weighing in on budget proposals from adult education and workforce development stakeholders for increased employment training and services. These include adding “immigrant integration” metrics to the Adult Education Block Grant and funding the Breaking Barriers to Employment Act (AB 1111, 2017).
Adult Education Block Grant –
The Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) is an important source of state funding to programs and services that provide adults with the knowledge needed to be prepared for the workforce, such as English language courses, GED attainment, and vocational skills. These programs also support integration and inclusion outcomes for immigrants not seeking employment training but adult education services that support their engagement in community and civic life. This year’s budget continues to sustain the $500 million funding.
Budget Proposal: A proposal from adult education stakeholders, the California Council for Adult Education and the California Adult Education Administrators Association, provides a two prong approach to advancing how AEBG funding reaches immigrant communities. The proposal would establish performance based funding that incentives the needs of communities with multiple barriers including limited English proficiency, poverty, and lack of high school completion, and include “immigrant integration” as a reported outcome for state funding. CIPC will be working with stakeholders and the Legislature
Note: CCAE – California Council for Adult Education – is recommending that Immigrant Integration metrics are incorporated into AEBG – the Adult Ed Block Grant.
Even as collaboration between the systems expands through regional consortium-building and AEBG, the K-12 community-based adult schools still have as their core mission to serve those low basic skills adults who oftentimes get caught in the remediation of post-secondary education. Additionally, the structural and cultural differences between the two systems have become more evident through this planning process and it is critical that the strengths of each be leveraged in ways that support student learning outcomes and appropriate levels of support services. The adult learners that are best served by K12 adult schools must not be left out.
– AEBG defines the specific outcomes sought – literacy and career progress.
– Serving immigrant adults in need of English language skills have been at the core of the K12 adult education mission since its inception. They come to adult schools to develop literacy, and in doing so, gain cultural competency and literacy more broadly defined as health, financial, digital literacy, parenting and family literacy, and civic engagement, all also critical to successful transition to college and careers.
– Unfortunately, the statute and overall AEBG framework does not explicitly provide for these types of immigrant integration metrics relative to demonstrating outcomes and accountability for student success.
– We are concerned that immigrant students who may not yet have the skills to demonstrate outcomes on the current statutory spectrum that focuses solely on literacy and career progress will be left behind as AEBG entities seek to focus on programming for those students for which clear outcomes and progress can be measured and for which funding may eventually be prioritized.
– The Alliance for Language Learners’ Integration, Education and Success (ALLIES) is an alliance serving the two-county Silicon Valley region of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Launched by a grant of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation in 2010, mission of ALLIES is to advance regional economic and social health through high-impact alliances for immigrant educational and career success. Through this work, ALLIES developed an Immigrant Integration Pathway offering an innovative way to identify and measure the critical factors for successful immigrant integration. The pathway includes eight high-level goal areas that are then further broken down into approaches and supporting objectives. The goals are intended to be: o Used by individuals as well as service providers via common metrics that can help assess if an individual is progressing and/or practices are effective;
o Measurable qualitatively and quantitatively;
o Achievable with milestones under reasonable timeframes; and
o A tool for the immigrant to have ownership of their progress, with the ability to see how incremental gains are related to longer-term goals.1
1 ALLIES Immigrant Integration Pathway Framework White Paper, 2017
Using the ALLIES Framework, amend the AEBG statute to explicitly reference and include “immigrant integration metrics” under AEBG.
Amend Education Code Section 84920, as follows:
(a) To the extent that one-time funding is made available in the Budget Act of 2015, consistent with the provisions of Section 84917, the chancellor and the Superintendent shall identify common measures for determining the effectiveness of members of each consortium in meeting the educational needs of adults. At a minimum, the chancellor and the Superintendent shall accomplish both of the following:
(1) Define the specific data each consortium shall collect.
(2) Establish a menu of common assessments and policies regarding placement of adults seeking education and workforce services into adult education programs to be used by each consortium to measure educational needs of adults and the effectiveness of providers in addressing those needs.
(b) No later than August 1, 20178, the chancellor and the Superintendent shall report to the Director of Finance, the State Board of Education, and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature on options for integrating the assessments described in subdivision (a) into the common assessment system developed pursuant to Section 78219. The report shall address compliance of the assessments with federal and state funding requirements for adult education programs, identify estimated costs
and timelines for the assessments, and identify changes in policies that may be needed to avoid duplicate assessments.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that both of the following occur:
(1) That the educational needs of adults in the state be better identified and understood through better sharing of data across state agencies.
(2) That, at a minimum, the chancellor and the Superintendent shall enter into agreements to share data related to effectiveness of the consortia between their agencies and with other state agencies, including, but not necessarily limited to, the Employment Development Department and the California Workforce Investment Board.
(d) The chancellor and the Superintendent shall identify, no later than January 1, 2016 August 1, 2018, the measures for assessing the effectiveness of consortia that will be used in the report that is required pursuant to Section 84917. These measures shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, all of the following:
(1) How many adults are served by members of the consortium.
(2) How many adults served by members of the consortium have demonstrated the following, as applicable:
(BC) Completion of high school diplomas or their recognized equivalents.
(CD) Completion of postsecondary certificates, degrees, or training programs.
(DE) Placement into jobs.
(EF) Improved wages.
(e) The chancellor and the Superintendent shall apportion the funds appropriated for purposes of this section in the Budget Act of 2015 in accordance with both of the following:
(1) Eighty-five percent of these funds shall be used for grants to consortia to establish systems or obtain data necessary to submit any reports or data required pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 84917.
(2) Fifteen percent of these funds shall be used for grants for development of statewide policies and procedures related to data collection or reporting or for technical assistance to consortia, or both.
(f) The chancellor and the Superintendent shall provide any guidance to the consortia necessary to support the sharing of data included in systems established by consortia pursuant to this section across consortia.
From the City of San Mateo:A diverse group of immigrants are getting an exclusive look at critical city services as part of the new English as a Second Language (ESL) City Government Academy. The City of San Mateo, in partnership with the San Mateo Adult School of the San Mateo Union High School District, recently launched the program to educate this new segment of the community about how local government works and to empower them to be able to access available resources and programs provided by the City. This first class of 25 students hail from 10 different countries.
The four-month program, which began in January, aims to expand participants’ awareness of local government, and increase civic engagement, leadership and volunteerism.
“Our key goal is for participants to feel empowered and comfortable accessing City services,” said City Manager Larry Patterson, who championed the program’s inception. “We are particularly excited to be energizing a new segment of our community to become more civically engaged.”
The program is the brainchild of Stephanie Kriebel, an educator who is herself a graduate of San Mateo’s traditional City Services Academy.
“As an ESL teacher at San Mateo Adult School, I saw an opportunity for us to help bridge the immigrant community we serve with City services to help familiarize our students with what the City does, how it helps the community, and what opportunities lie within the City for them to pursue,” Kriebel said.
Academy participants have an opportunity to meet with City staff and learn about local government while also garnering concrete knowledge and skills to empower them in their everyday lives, such as learning how to operate a fire extinguisher and register for a recreation class. For some, even visiting City facilities is novel. For others, the impact of participating in the Academy runs far deeper.
“I honestly think I’m so lucky to live in San Mateo because the City of San Mateo organizes so many events and programs for the community. I come from Guatemala originally, and these kinds of programs help me integrate into the community here. Now I have lots of things I can do,” said program participant Edwin Turuy.
Program days include visits to San Mateo’s Fire Station 23, Beresford Recreation Center and Park, Police Station, Wastewater Treatment Plant, and City Hall. Future cohorts will also have the opportunity to visit the San Mateo Public Library. The pilot program culminates with a graduation ceremony April 19, 2018.
Photos courtesy of the City of San Mateo (ESL students learn how to operate a fire extinguisher during a tour of a San Mateo fire station.)
The report recommends eight changes to the adult education system in California. Some of the recommendations are intriguing, others problematic. Just for fun, I’m going to rate them on the following scale:
YES YES,BUT PROCEED WITH CAUTION NEED MORE INFORMATION NO
Here are the recommendations and their Save Your Adult School ratings:
The adoption of a student ID number that could be used to identify students in both the adult school and community college systems PROCEED WITH CAUTION
A uniform funding rate for community colleges and adult schools NEED MORE INFORMATION
The elimination of course fees or adoption of a single “nominal” charge ELIMINATION YES,BUT “NOMINAL” CHARGE NO!
A requirement that entities other than adult schools and community colleges that provide adult education (such as libraries) participate in the regional consortia NEED MORE INFORMATION
A portion of state funding for adult education to be based on performance NO
Align assessment and placement policies for community colleges and adult schools YES
No longer require adult school instructors to get a teaching credential, so that any holder of a bachelor’s degree will be qualified to teach adult school NO
Restrict credit instruction at community colleges to college-level coursework YES
Before we look at the individual recommendations and their possible consequences, let us take a look at the pedigree of the LAO report itself. There are two things to keep in mind.
This report is part of the state budget process. For years, adult education policy has been made in the context of budgeting, so the policies are essentially fiscal policy rather than education policy. These recommendations are not being made by educators or informed by the thinking of educators.
The report is one of a long line of reports about adult education that exclude input from adult school teachers and students.The current LAO report is a descended from a 2009 study called Adult Education Strategic Planning Process Needs Assessment, produced for the California Department of Education by WestEd. WestEd somehow managed to evaluate the needs of California’s adult students without talking to them or their teachers.From this “needs assessment” came a “strategic plan” entitled “Linking Adults to Opportunity, A Blueprint for the Transformation of the California Department of Adult Education Program”. Adult school students and teachers were aggressively excluded from any input on this document also. There was a “comment period” after the fully formed plan was released in October of 2010. I put “comment period” in quotes because the Adult Education Office announced, in its notice that the comment period was beginning, “Although we are beyond the point of incorporating significant revisions, we are interested in hearing any comments or concerns”. In other words, “Please do send us your concerns which we plan to do absolutely nothing about, because we have to have, you know, a comment period. It’s required or something.” Comments on the document made it abundantly clear that adult education administrators saw presentations and attended workshops on the plan while it was being formed. But students and teachers had no idea what was about to hit them until the comment period that wasn’t was launched in October of 2010.
Since then, a series of drastic changes to California’s adult education system has rolled over teachers and students like the wheels of a juggernaut, always with no real opportunity for them to have input or explain how the process is affecting them. The LAO’s recent analysis is the next set of wheels. That doesn’t mean all the recommendations in the analysis are bad, but it does mean that, good or bad, students and teachers won’t be consulted about them. And whatever we think about the current recommendations, it’s important to remember that they flow from an untransparent and uninclusive process. The most recent LAO analysis seeks to complete, or at least further, the work that was begun in the 2009 “needs assessment”, where you will find many of the ideas in the LAO analysis mentioned.
With that in mind, let us proceed to the recommendations
A common ID number for community colleges and adult schools
PROCEED WITH CAUTION: This would probably be helpful, as long as the number adopted is not the Social Security Number. Using the SSN would shut undocumented immigrants out. Given the heated nature of the debate around immigration now, any system that identifies immigrants as undocumented, such as a combination of Social Security numbers for those who have them or some other number (like an ITIN) for those who don’t, should be avoided. These numbers are eventually supposed to go into a statewide database. California has had anti-immigrant governors before (hello, Pete Wilson), and may have them again. We can’t trust that this will always be a sanctuary state. The safest option would be a common student ID # for both adult schools and community colleges that is separate from any other identifying number.
This is actually a very old recommendation; adopting this number was one of the original mandates for the consortia. Possibly it hasn’t happened yet because the task is bigger and more complicated than policy makers realized, and the consortia are having a hard time figuring out how to do it
Uniform funding for community colleges and adult schools
NEED MORE INFORMATION: This is an intriguing recommendation, but it isn’t clear how it would work. The LAO notes that community colleges receive funding for their noncredit programs equivalent to $5,310 per full-time student equivalent (FTE) for most noncredit classes (it sounds like this is for the more “academic” classes, like basic math and English, ESL, and Career Tech Ed). For some noncredit courses, like parenting and citizenship, they get $3,300 per FTE.For adult schools, the state has no per-student funding rate.
The LAO’s recommendation is strongly worded:
We think the most important first step in any restructuring of adult education funding rules is to set a uniform rate per full-time equivalent student. That is, we recommend the state provide the same base per-student funding rate for adult schools and community colleges.
This sounds like it could be a good thing. $5,310 per full-time student looks like a princely sum to adult schools, which almost certainly spend much less per pupil. But there are a lot of variables. Is the LAO’s intent to raise per-pupil spending for adult schools to the level of what community colleges now receive? Or is it to lower what the community colleges get and give that amount to adult schools as well? And if adult schools are to receive $5,310 FTE per student, or even some lower amount, will their total funding be raised accordingly so they can continue to serve the same number of students they now serve? Or will they have to shed students so they can spend the higher per-student amount on each student without exceeding the $375 million or so that is currently budgeted for them?
What the LAO report doesn’t say is that adult schools did, at one time, receive per-pupil funding. Before the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent abolition of categorical funding for adult schools, adult schools received ADA (funding based on attendance) just like K-12 schools and community colleges. ADA for adult schools was abolished in 2008. If the state is to reinstate per-pupil funding for adult schools, it is hard to see how that could be done without restoring ADA, which would be a very good thing.
The LAO gives a rather strange reason for being concerned about the lack of per-pupil spending for adult schools. Their concern is that, without a per-pupil rate, “adult schools determine for themselves how much to spend per student”. This might mean that “some adult schools may be offering much richer programs to a much smaller group of students.”
Oh horrors! Richer programs! How dare they!
This weird reasoning seems to come from the LAO’s bias towards constantly putting adult schools in the wrong. There probably is significant variation in what adult schools throughout the state spend per pupil, but the difference isn’t due to the lack of a state mandated per-pupil amount. It’s due to the fact that some adult schools have much more money than others. This was true in the best of times, and even when adult schools did receive per-pupil funding, but it was greatly exacerbated by the fiscal crisis of 2008 and the state’s consequent decision to abolish categorical funding for adult schools. The fate of adult schools then tended to depend on how well their K-12 district was doing. Some districts took all the adult school money and abolished their adult schools. Others kept their adult schools open, but just barely. Oakland is a good example of this; a system which had served 25,000 adults annually was reduced to 11 classes. But some adult schools, usually ones in better funded districts, survived nearly unscathed.
Once the financial crisis was over, the state did nothing to rectify this situation, but instead locked it in. Through the Adult Education Block Grant, adult schools receive the same amount of money they received in 2013, which was the year the state put an end to the freefall that began in 2008, when the state began to allow school districts to take as much money from their adult schools as they wanted. Nothing was done to restore adult schools that had been ravaged, like Oakland. Adult schools that had been cut to the bone had to start functioning in the new AEBG consortium system alongside adult schools that had maintained most of their funding and community colleges that were having their funding increased. The LAO keeps saying that some consortia are functioning better than others, but they never look at what individual adult schools within the consortia are up against, which might explain a lot of the discrepancy they so love to bemoan.
The fear that a few adult schools might be offering rich programs to a pampered few students (unlikely) isn’t a very good reason to suggest that their per pupil funding be put on equal footing with that of the community college non-credit programs. A much better reason is that adult schools are being asked to participate in the consortia with community colleges as equals, but their funding is wildly unequal. If the state would adopt a per-pupil spending rate for adult schools that is equal to what community college non-credit programs receive now, and fund adult schools so that, at the new per-pupil rate, they could continue serving the same number of students they serve now, that would be wonderful, and a very significant step towards repairing the damage that began in 2008. But it would probably entail putting much more money into the adult education budget than is currently proposed.
Elimination of course fees or adoption of a uniform “nominal” fee
Elimination YES, BUT; “nominal” fee NO:
Elimination of fees refers only to Career Technical Education (CTE) classes, because all other state funded adult school programs (Adult Basic Education, High School Diploma, GED. Adults with Disabilities, English as a Second Language, and some Parent Education) are currently mandated to be offered free. There is state funding for CTE, and the fact that adult schools can still charge for it is an anomaly. However, CTE classes are more expensive to run, and adult schools might not be able to offer them at all if they couldn’t charge for them. The LAO notes that if adult school per pupil funding is put on an equal footing with that of community college non-credit programs, then most adult schools could probably operate their CTE programs without charging fees. In which case, full speed ahead; let’s get rid of the fees.
But the LAO also puts forward another possibility, that both community colleges and adult schools start charging a “nominal” fee for all courses, including the ones that are now offered free. This is a truly bad idea, in so many ways.
Why, at this time when we as a state are starting not only to recognize the value of free education, but finding ways to make it happen, are we even considering soaking people who need to acquire basic literacy skills? Look again at the kinds of classes that are being offered free: Adult Basic Education, the equivalent of an elementary school education for adults, High School Diploma and GED, for adults who don’t have a high school education, ESL for immigrants who haven’t mastered English, Adults with Disabilities, for adults who may have limited employment options or even need help with skills for everyday living due to a disability. These are classes for people who may not read well (at least in English, for ESL students), or may not be able to read at all. They usually cannot write much (at least in English). They may lack basic math skills. They often work, but often in jobs that don’t make them much money because their lack of literacy limits their access to higher paying jobs. Why do we want to start charging them for the classes they need to get ahead and be able to better support their families?
The LAO offers a reason that is as insulting to these hard-working and sometimes struggling students as it is ill-informed:
Requiring all students to pay a small fee could foster positive behavioral changes – such as making students more deliberate in their selection of courses and more purposeful about holding campuses accountable for high-quality services. That is, rather than being a barrier, the fee would be intended to ensure students are serious about their studies and campuses are serious about offering quality programs aligned with student interests.
What evidence does the LAO have that students aren’t serious about their studies now, or that schools aren’t serious about offering quality programs? They don’t give any. It is just assumed that students aren’t taking their studies seriously because the classes are free.
Why would the LAO make such an assumption about our students with no evidence? Unfortunately, they may be unconsciously tapping into an unexamined and harmful assumption our culture makes about poor people: that they are lazy and make bad decisions, and that’s why they are poor. Why charging them a few bucks would cure all these supposed faults is not clear, but it seems to be the preferred remedy.
The truth is that if our students were lazy, they wouldn’t even be in school. Unlike children, they aren’t being forced to come. The idea that they might be choosing the wrong courses is just bizarre. If you look again at the programs that are free, there is little possibility that students are going to make a mistake about which one to enter. An immigrant who needs to learn English isn’t going to sign up for an Adults with Disabilities class by mistake. And if there are situations where students are choosing the wrong class, it’s probably because the school doesn’t have adequate counselling services, not because the students aren’t paying for the classes.
Which brings us to the idea that students will hold their schools more accountable for quality programs if they are paying. This is just weird. If a school’s programs aren’t all they should be, lack of funding is more likely to be the problem than lack of student complaint. And if the funding isn’t there, the students can complain until the cows come home without the school being able to do much about the problems. I would like to assure the LAO that, although our students are certainly grateful for the free classes we offer, their gratitude doesn’t keep them from complaining or making suggestions when appropriate. Charging them money isn’t likely to significantly change their behavior in this regard.
The LAO has imagined a problem that isn’t there, and then proposed to solve it with “nominal” fees. If the fees are truly “nominal”, they won’t contribute much to the budgets of adult schools or community colleges; they won’t for example, allow adult schools to keep running CTE classes without substantially more state funding. And, according to the LAO, the purpose of the fees isn’t to contribute to school funding anyway; the fees are there to discourage “bad” student behavior that doesn’t even exist.
And the fact is that the fees will be a barrier for some. However “nominal” the fee, there will be students who are unable to pay. Families with limited resources tend to do triage as to which family members get an education when they have to pay; this can mean that they decide to educate men instead of women because men still make more than women. And students who have to frequently stop out of school because of family or work responsibilities may give up if they have to spend $25 or $35 a term to sign up for classes they may not be able to attend.
What relatively small fees can do is discourage the students who are harder to serve. This makes the job of the school easier, because they are now serving the students with more resources and lives that are less disrupted. But is the purpose of education policy to make the job of the school easier, or is it to educate all students, even the ones with the most challenges?
The fact is that, rather than encouraging “good” behavior in students, fees can encourage bad behavior in institutions. Schools can rely on fees to push out the harder to serve students, rather than finding solutions that will help those students stay in school. Another problem with “nominal” fees is that they don’t stay nominal. Once the fees are there, raising them can become the preferred solution to every need or even desire for funding. One need only to look at the rising tuition and obscenely climbing pay for administrators at U.C. Berkeley to see where this can lead, or at our country’s staggering problem with student debt.
Free adult education in California began in the mid-nineteenth century. Somehow the state was able to see the value of free education that served primarily low income people and immigrants even in an era that wasn’t very sympathetic to immigrants and the poor. Adult education in California remained free even during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Our state currently enjoys a booming economy and a healthy surplus, and hopefully has a more enlightened attitude about immigration and poverty than it had in the 1800s. Why would we start charging for adult education classes now? Instead, we need to commit to the concept of public education as a public good. If we can recognize this by beginning to provide the first year of community college free, certainly we can do it by keeping state funded adult education classes free.
Entities other than adult schools and community colleges to participate in the consortia
NEED MORE INFORMATION: This would seem like a “yes”, but how would these entities be affected? It seems like we should hear from them. When the consortia were getting up and running, other state and federally funded providers of adult education, like library literacy programs, were encouraged, but not required, to participate, and some certainly did. In some consortia they may not have felt entirely welcome, because the designated recipients of the AEBG funding, community colleges and adult schools, may have feared that they wanted a nibble at the AEBG money. This may explain why, in some cases at least, they may not be participating any more. Now the LAO is recommending that they be required to participate in order to receive their state funding, but not that they get any additional funding. It seems that if their participation in the consortia will impose any additional costs on them, they should get some additional funding through the consortia or some other source
A portion of funding based on performance
NO: The state keeps piling more and more data and reporting requirements onto the consortia, with the result that too much funding is going to data and reporting and not enough to direct services for students. We have seen huge increases in resources going to data and reporting in the form of positions for consortium managers and accountants, additional meetings for administrators and teachers, and staff tied up in running data and writing reports. There has been very little in the way of new services for students or new classes. Students at the lower levels are being particularly shortchanged, as the workforce focus of the AEBG puts pressure on the consortia to show transitions to higher education and the workforce. Adding a performance based component to funding would only exacerbate these unfortunate trends.
It is also unfair to implement performance based funding when inequalities between adult schools created by categorical flexibility have not been addressed. The playing field is nowhere near level, and those schools and consortia that are already in a better financial position will be better equipped to deal with a performance based funding component. The state needs to help struggling adult schools and consortia by providing equitable funding, instead of punishing struggling schools by tying funding to “performance”, which is often another way of saying that a school already has the resources it needs to do well
.Performance based funding and punishing schools for not meeting benchmarks are part of the failed No Child Left Behind/Race to the Top federal policies. Haven’t we learned yet that this only locks in or even worsens inequalities instead of correcting them?
In case the LAO and state legislators are unaware of this, most adult schools already spend an enormous amount of time and energy pursuing performance-based federal WIOA funding tied to data collection and scores on CASAS reading tests. The pursuit of improved CASAS reading scores distorts adult school programs because skills that are important to students but not measured by the standardized test, like speaking, pronunciation, grammar and writing (for ESL students) are sometimes squeezed out by the need to show progress on the reading test. We have enough performance-based already, thank you.
Alignment of assessment and placement policies among community colleges and adult schools
YES: The LAO report notes that “segments” are working on these alignments and recommends that the issue be revisited in 2019-2020, when the work should be complete. Although being called a “segment” makes me feel like I’m somehow part of a worm, the work of aligning assessments and placement is important and this recommendation by the LAO makes sense.
Abolishing the adult school teaching credential
NO: This one has adult school teachers really worried. After a decade of dismissive treatment by the state, we have to wonder what they are trying to pull now. Is the goal to de-professionalize adult school teaching and then further degrade the treatment of the adult school teachers on the grounds that they aren’t really teachers and don’t have skills? Already adult school teachers are almost all enforced part-time, hourly employees without health benefits or paid vacations. Every holiday and school break is a mini-layoff for an adult school teacher. Adult school teachers are mostly freeway flyers going from a part-time job in one district to a..
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE FROM COABE: TAKE ACTION TO SAVE FEDERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUNDING
Do you think adult education is important? Do you value your work and the work of others in the field? If you do, then now is the time to stand up for adult ed and for our students.
While political Washington is focused on off-year special elections and gossipy Washington is placing bets on who in the President’s cabinet is staying and who is leaving, the rest of us are paying attention to the fact that with a week to go, funding for Fiscal Year 2018 is not yet resolved.
As you may recall, the government is operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) that is due to expire on March 23. That CR is expected to reflect the bi-partisan budget agreement that added $130 billion to non-defense discretionary spending for Fiscal Years 20189 and 2019.
While the Republican House Majority had hoped to complete the bill this week, the bill is still being worked on. Among the more contentious issues are funding for the opioid crisis, the border wall, and a proposed tunnel to run from New Jersey to New York (and back). There are also so-called “policy riders” including funding for Planned Parenthood, gun control, and immigration. Finally, there are bills that might not otherwise be considered that Members in both Houses want to attach to this “must pass” package.
We can say with a high degree of certainty, that everyone concerned wants this to be finished by the 23rd, so the Congress can finally focus on Fiscal Year 2019. The appropriations season begins with Cabinet secretaries testifying before Congress on the Administration’s budget. Secretary DeVos is supposed to testify before the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday, March 20 at 10 am. It may be that her appearance will conflict with the legislative calendar and be rescheduled.
The DeVos hearing, if it takes place, will be webcast. You can watch it by going to the House Appropriations Committee website and following the prompts to get to the Labor-HHS subcommittee.
The President’s Budget was released on February 12 and, among other reductions and eliminations, it proposed to cut Adult Education by $92.2 million or 16 percent. (See February 12 Budget Alert). When he testified before Congress, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney said the President’s FY 19 Budget did not reflect the bi-partisan budget agreement “given our dire fiscal situation, the Administration is not proposing to match the new non-defense cap in FY 2019. The Administration does not believe these non-defense spending levels comport with its vision for the proper role and size of federal government.” Nevertheless, Appropriators are expected to abide by the agreement and ignore most of the Administration’s proposals. COABE is in the process of completing its FY 2019 Hill Day plans, working with members of the House and Senate on a strategy to demonstrate support for Adult Ed on the Hill, and continuing to rally the field to contact their legislators to let them know that adult education is important. If we do not stand up for ourselves, and our students, who will? Take action today!
This Legislative Update is brought to you in part by generous support provided by
California’s adult schools have not seen an increase in funding for nine years. Worse yet, the first five of those years, from 2008 to 2012, saw a steep drop in adult school funding. During those recession years, state funding for adult schools dropped from about $750 million a year to about $350 million a year. In 2013, adult school funding was frozen at $350 million a year. While other branches of education have had their funding restored and increased as the state’s economy recovered, adult schools struggle with chronic underfunding, falling behind as costs of labor and materials rise, and unable to recover from the ravages of the recession.
The state needs to increase funding for adult schools for the 2018-2019 school year. There is absolutely no excuse for underfunding this vital resource for a full decade. It has always been the mission of California’s adult schools to educate the state’s most vulnerable and hardest to serve populations, but as a result of “adult education reform” measures that were instituted in 2013, students with low levels of literacy are increasingly concentrated in adult schools. To underfund adult schools is to underfund the education of adults who need basic literacy skills. These students need more resources in order to succeed, not less. They often need help with transportation, child care and access to social services as well as excellent teaching, access to technology (which many cannot get outside of school) and well run, adequately resourced schools. They should not be trapped in an underfunded, struggling system. That is why Increased funding for adult schools is a social justice issue.
Students who need to acquire basic literacy are increasingly concentrated in adult schools because of the Regional Consortia system of collaboration between community colleges and adult schools that was part of the adult education reform measures of 2013. Under the consortium system, adult schools and community colleges were supposed to divide up the work of educating the adults in their region. In many regions, the consortia have decided that the community college should concentrate on educating the more advanced students, leaving it to the adult schools to bring less advanced students up to speed. So community colleges in some regions are dropping remedial classes and levels of English as a Second Language below Intermediate, for example. This is a logical way to divide up the work, but it is also unfair to less advanced students as long as adult school funding remains so inadequate and limited as compared to community college funding.
It is harder, not easier, to educate less advanced adult students. It takes time and patience to teach the basics even to the adults who have the fewest barriers to learning. Then you have to take into account that adults who need to acquire basic literacy skills include traumatized war refugees living on small government stipends who came to the U.S. with little or no English, students who want to finish high school but had a bad experience with school the first time, students held back by undiagnosed learning issues, or simply adults with family and work responsibilities that keep interrupting their education. Many of these students come to school with serious doubts about their own ability to learn. They are just as capable of learning as that typical community college student, the graduate of a U.S. high school, who comes all ready to do homework, take notes and understand textbook jargon — but they are going to need help to get there. It isn’t realistic to expect to educate them on the cheap while throwing money at students who face fewer challenges. Yet this is what the state of California has done, year after year.
The state budget for 2018-2019 will come out in January, and budget decisions are being made now. We need to write to the governor and to our legislators, and tell them that another year without a budget increase for adult schools is simply unacceptable and a disservice to the state’s most vulnerable adult students. We shouldn’t accept arguments about impending budgetary doom or the need for fiscal responsibility. The state has found funding to make the first year of community college free and expand community college non-credit programs while making austerity arguments against increasing adult school funding even by a miniscule amount. The expansion of community college services is an excellent thing, but the state needs to give some attention to those adults who are not ready for community college.
Adult school funding now comes through the Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG); AEBG funds are shared by all members of the consortia, including the community colleges, and there is a portion of the AEBG that is earmarked for adult schools. It is this amount that needs to be increased, though an overall increase would of course be a good thing too. A sample letter appears below. Copy your state assembly member and senator too; you can find their addresses here http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
Governor Jerry Brown
C/O State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Brown:
I am writing to request that an increase in the Adult Education Block Grant funding that is earmarked for adult schools be included in the state budget for 2018-2019. Adult schools have been struggling to educate some of the state’s most vulnerable adult students on inadequate funding since 2008, and it’s time they got some relief. To deny adequate funding to adult schools of funds is to deny their students an education. A failure to help all California’s adults achieve basic literacy is ultimately harmful to the state.
Since the creation of the Regional Consortia in 2013, the task of providing basic literacy education to adults has been concentrated in adult schools even more than in the past. As community colleges drop remedial programs to concentrate on educating the more advanced students, adult schools are increasingly left with the students who need more help. It is unfair to underfund the very system that is charged with helping beginning level students and students who need remediation to reach their potential. These students deserve as much support as more advanced students who may have fewer barriers to learning, and the system that provides them with an education should be funded accordingly.
I respectfully request that increased funding for adult schools be included in the 2018-2019 budget.
When it comes to adult schools, the State of California is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On one hand, the state sternly denounces “duplication of effort” between adult schools and community colleges. This alleged duplication is supposedly such a dreadful thing that the state had to restructure all of adult education in 2013, in part to address it. Community colleges and adult schools were placed in consortia and commanded to come together to find ways to stamp out duplication. But now the state is actively encouraging the community colleges to do what adult schools do by expanding their non-credit programs. Adult school teachers, who took the consortia seriously and have worked hard to make them a success, can only shake their heads and wonder if duplication of effort is a sin only when an adult school does it. A strange outcome, since by definition it takes two to duplicate.
Given that adult schools also receive very unequal treatment when it comes to funding, can adult school teachers and the communities they serve be blamed for feeling like the state never intends to give adult schools an even break? Adult school funding plunged between 2008 and 2013 and has been frozen ever since at about half of what adult schools received before the Great Recession. The state seems determined, almost as a matter of principal, never to raise adult school funding again. Last year, adult schools were the only branch of education that did not receive a funding increase. They did not even receive a cost of living increase. Consequently, they fall farther and farther behind as the costs of labor and materials rise. State funding for adult schools is their main source of funding; all other funding they receive is supplemental, and without the state funding, inadequate as it is, they could not survive.
California’s community colleges are underfunded like all branches of education in the state, but they have done much better than adult schools in the past several years. Like adult schools, they suffered budget cuts during the recession years, but in recent years their funding has been restored and even increased. The state has recently taken several steps to help them, including passing legislation to make the first year of community college free. The expansion of non-credit is another way the state is giving them a boost. This is good news for Californians. But adult schools already provide free English as a Second Language and basic literacy instruction to some of the most vulnerable populations in the state, and these services are free for as long as the student needs them, not just the first year. Couldn’t the state give adult schools a little help and encouragement as well?
The elimination of “duplicate services” may sound like a cost-cutting measure, and that may have been the initial idea. But pushing more of adult education into the community colleges will be more expensive, not cheaper. Here is how the state is encouraging community colleges to create and/or expand non-credit programs.
While there are a few community colleges with large non-credit programs, like City College of San Francisco, most community colleges have either very small non-credit programs or no non-credit at all. Until recently, administrators didn’t like them, because the per-pupil funding for non-credit was lower than for credit classes. Financially, it made more sense to run a better-compensated for-credit class than a non-credit class.
Also, some community college unions resisted non-credit because it created a two-tier wage system within the community college. For-credit teachers in community colleges are required to have master’s degrees; non-credit teachers can teach on a bachelor’s degree. They do not even have to have a teaching credential like a K-12 teacher (or an adult school teacher), and are sometimes paid less than a for-credit teacher (but more than an adult school teacher).
Recently the state changed all that, by changing the compensation for non-credit classes. Now the per-pupil compensation for a non-credit class is the same as the compensation for a for-credit class. So the college no longer loses money by running a non-credit class.
A non-credit teacher is still only required to have a bachelor’s degree, and can still be paid less than a non-credit teacher. Some community college unions are resolving this by bargaining for a requirement that all teachers have master’s degrees and be paid at the same rate, but this is on a college-by-college basis.
I hate to argue for adult schools on the basis that they are cheap, because they should be better funded and their teachers should be paid more. But the fact is, they are cheaper. Adult school teachers are paid far less than even a non-credit community college teacher and their compensation could increase significantly without reaching what a non-credit teacher makes.
Adult schools no longer receive per-pupil compensation; they only receive a portion of the Adult Education Block Grant funding that is based on the funding they received in 2013, which is in turn based on a fraction of the per-pupil funding they were receiving way back in 2008 when the state blew up adult school funding. So there is no way increased non-credit community college programs are cheaper than adult school classes.
What other rationale could there be? Is the quality of the instruction supposed to be better? How can that be, when non-credit teachers are only required to have a bachelor’s degree? Undoubtedly most of them are fine teachers, but they are not required to have as many qualifications as an adult school teacher, who must do additional coursework and earn a credential.
Really, there should be no conflict. There are five million Californians in need of basic literacy services, and community colleges and adult schools together serve less than a fourth of them. Free community college and expanded non-credit programs are a step in the right direction, but they should not come at the expense of adult schools, who also perform a vital service and make important contributions to California’s education system. California needs to support and expand its adult schools along with the rest of its education system, starting with a funding increase for adult schools in next year’s budget.
An adult school teacher in our program retired this year. Her subject was English as a Second Language. She had certainly earned a peaceful retirement after a long and distinguished career, but I can’t help wondering if she might have stayed a little longer if adult school had not become such a tense place to work over the past eight years. Adult schools have been chronically underfunded since the Great Recession of 2008; for some reason, the state decided not to restore their funding when funding for other branches of education was restored and even increased. In addition to the constant lack of money, adult schools now are increasingly threatened by the demands of charter schools for space. Through the attendant cuts and displacements, adult school teachers have struggled to hold it together for their students. I guess she just got tired. She won’t be easy to replace, as adult schools, like all other schools in the U.S. are struggling with a teacher shortage.
Like most adult school teachers, she is diligent, conscientious and self-sacrificing. After her last day of teaching, she spent several unpaid days cleaning out her classroom to make sure it would be nice for the next teacher. As she was cleaning up, she came by the English as a Second Language office and asked if we could use her break time supplies. On her last day of cleaning, she left them with us.
So now we have them, a row of teacups. Carefully cleaned, bright and shiny, and lovingly arranged on a tray, the form a stark contrast to their surroundings. The corridors of our building are piled high with ancient office equipment and school supplies, surrounded by yellow caution tape. The piles have been there for months, because the adult school has had to move out of half of our main building to make way for a new program the district needed to start. Because charter schools have taken all other available space, there was nowhere else for the district to put it. Next year the adult school will have to move out completely as the new program grows. We will move to the adult school’s one remaining building, which is located across town and far away from the communities that need the adult school most, unless a charter school has taken that building as well. School board members and district personnel alike have repeatedly told us that this may happen, and that we have to be prepared for the adult school to be completely decentralized in the future.
The ESL office, where we had to struggle to find space for the teacups, is also in disarray. It has been that way for two years, since we had to move from the other building (yes, the one we may be moving back to, if it is still there), again because another district program was displaced by a charter and the district needed our space. Because the adult school budget is so tight, there was no money to help us organize our new space or modify it so we could organize all the books and materials we had to bring from our former, much larger, space. We are still mostly in boxes, and the few items we were able to put into storage spaces in our current building have now also been moved into our office, as the new program took over all of the space that was being used for storage. The office supports 35 ESL classes and about 26 teachers. It isn’t easy for them to locate the materials they need for their classes.
Whenever I see the row of teacups, I am reminded that I work in an environment where anything that is orderly feels strangely out of place. I know the importance of those teacups and why they are so well taken care of. With these cups, the students shared the tasks of preparing and serving each other refreshments. They drank from these cups as they tried to socialize in their new language and worked at forging connections among their different cultures and customs. With these cups, they created community. This community is the heart and soul of any successful ESL class; it is as important as good teaching and good curriculum.
Tomorrow is the first day of school. Teachers have been coming into the ESL office on their own time for the last two weeks, getting ready. Somehow, they will find the supplies they need in our jumble of an office. They will go into their classrooms and somehow leave behind the chronic scarcity, the chaos, and the uncertainty about the future. They will create an orderly and inviting place for their students to learn and become a community of learners. I don’t know how long they will be able to do this, but, given their determination, it will probably be right up until the last door closes on the last adult school class in the state of California.
Read Full Article
Read for later
Articles marked as Favorite are saved for later viewing.
Scroll to Top
Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.