Affirmative action non-action still causing waves in Sacramento

SACRAMENTO — When the state Senate took up the issue of affirmative action in late January, it was a relatively tepid affair. 

After 20 minutes of polite debate, senators passed a measure that, if approved by voters, would overturn California's ban on affirmative action in public higher education.

But within weeks, the debate turned fractious. Backlash arose among some Asian Americans who feared their children could lose access to the state's universities if more places were granted to students from other minority groups.

The measure is now shelved, derailed by the sudden opposition and the majority Democrats' slow-footed defense of it.

But political ramifications remain.

The controversy has caused unusual friction among the Capitol's ruling Democrats as lawmakers differ over how to control the fallout. Several legislators cited hard feelings among the party's Latinos, African Americans and Asian Americans.

State Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, said she had "deep concerns" about how some of her colleagues backed off the legislation.

The Democrats, who passed the proposal on party lines, are now trying to redirect a debate that threatens their "big tent" of ethnic and racial alliances. Republicans, sensing an inroad to an increasingly powerful group of voters, are keeping the spotlight on the issue.

The debate is rooted in a law voters passed in 1996 that forbids the state to consider race, ethnicity or gender in hiring, contracting or admissions to public institutions of higher education.

A 2003 report by the University of California found that implementing race-neutral admissions policies led to a "substantial decline" in the proportion of black, Latino and American Indian students entering the system's most selective institutions.

David A. Lehrer, president of Community Advocates, a Los Angeles public affairs group that opposes affirmative action, said that if admissions are meant to more closely reflect the state's demographics, Asian Americans are the one group that is "obviously disproportionately represented."

Asians make up 14% of California's population, according to 2012 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Last year, Asian Americans were 30% of the University of California's total enrollment, although supporters of affirmative action say the proportion of Asian American students increased by only a few points after the race-neutral admissions policy took effect.

News of the proposal to reinstate affirmative action spread mostly among the Chinese community through social networking sites such as WeChat, a Chinese version of Facebook.

An online group called the 80-20 Initiative, run by S.B. Woo, a former Democratic lieutenant governor of Delaware who now has no party affiliation, was particularly adept at harnessing its email list to exert pressure on Asian American lawmakers.

It worked. Three Chinese American senators — Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and Sen. Carol Liu (D-La Cañada Flintridge) — who had voted for the measure sent a public letter to its author, Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), urging him to delay it to ensure that Asian Americans' concerns were heard.

In the Assembly, several lawmakers, such as Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), said they'd oppose the proposal in its existing form, sinking its prospects.

Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), chairman of the Latino caucus, said he was "disheartened" by that response.

But within weeks, Hernandez — who said his Facebook page had attracted so much invective about the hot-button issue that he had to shut it down — withdrew his measure.

In the past, he had introduced a number of proposals to roll back the anti-affirmative-action law, none of which were enacted. He said he had never heard objections from Asian Americans worried that they would be harmed.

"I hadn't thought that would be a constituency that would have a concern," Hernandez said.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-affirmative-action-20140331,0,2270777.story#ixzz2yLJdoie6

California Voters Split on Jerry Brown School Plans

California voters have yet to strongly embrace Gov. Jerry Brown's controversial plan to shift money from rich schools to poor ones, an ominous sign as he works to win support for the idea from skeptical lawmakers and the state's powerful teachers unions.

A new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll found that 50% of respondents agreed with such a move, to help school districts that serve low-income children and English-language learners.

But a significant minority, 39%, opposed the plan, which is embedded in the governor's budget blueprint and is the centerpiece of his education agenda. Brown has described his bid as "a classic case of justice to unequals."

Support broke along ethnic and socioeconomic lines, with 67% of Latinos backing the proposal, compared with 42% of whites.

Voters solidly endorsed a separate Brown proposal to give school districts more control over the state funds they receive, with 59% in favor. Only 41% approved of a legislative effort to make it easier for local governments to raise more education money through parcel taxes — a priority for many Democratic lawmakers.

In the past, Democrats and their allies in teachers unions have resisted upending the way schools are funded. Brown's most contentious proposal this year would give all districts a base grant, with extra funding for each student who is low-income, struggling with English or in foster care.

"Our future depends not on across-the-board funding, but in disproportionately funding those schools that have disproportionate challenges," he said as he unveiled his plan in January.

With race and class at its core, the proposal could open a thorny debate.

"The challenge for the governor here is to make a case that this is not a divisive issue but a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats" proposal, said Drew Lieberman of the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, which conducted the survey in conjunction with the Republican company American Viewpoint.

Lisa Andrews, a Latina from Fresno, approves of the plan. The 47-year-old Democrat grew up in a small Central Valley farming community where her elementary school classmates struggled with English skills.

"If you're going to set tax money aside, then give it to those who would benefit the most from it," she said. "You have to be able to speak English and learn your grammar first, because the other classes are useless if you're not on equal ground" with other students.

On the other side of the issue, Dave Kanevsky, a pollster for American Viewpoint, described the governor's plan as "class warfare applied to schools" because it is framed "in terms of taking from one and giving to another."

Respondent Debra Sexton, 57, a Democrat and retired photographer from Corona, expressed a similar view. She said the idea of giving more money to poor schools at the expense of wealthier ones was fundamentally unfair, particularly to high-performing campuses.

"I don't think those schools should be punished because a lesser school isn't making the grade," she said.

Brown's proposal to give districts more spending flexibility would eliminate dozens of state requirements for specific programs, such as vocational training and summer school, and instead allocate more money to districts with no strings attached.

via LA Times

US turns down No Child Left Behind waiver for California

California has become apparently only the second state — and by far the largest — to be denied a waiver of requirements of the No Child Left Behind education program, state officials said.

Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have won waivers from provisions of the 2001 law, one of the signature achievements of the administration of former President George W. Bush, while nine other states and Puerto Rico have received conditional approval or have applications pending, according to the U.S. Education Department.


The agency doesn't publicize which states have been turned down, but Iowa is the only other state to have publicly acknowledged that it has been rejected.


California officials got the news Friday by telephone, The San Jose Mercury News reported, quoting Michael Kirst, president of the state Board of Education.

Kirst told the Mercury News that California's unwillingness to tie teacher evaluations to student test scores was what sank the state's request.

The denial wasn't a surprise — Kirst and state school Superintendent Tom Torlakson warned local administrators in an open letter Friday that federal officials had indicated that California's request would be turned down.

"It is disappointing that our state's request — which enjoyed such strong support from parents, teachers, administrators, and education advocates across California — has apparently been rejected," Torlakson said in a separate statement.

Authorization for No Child Left Behind — formal title: the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA — expired in 2007, and Congress hasn't acted to rewrite or refresh it. Last year, the Education Department told the states that they could apply for waivers pending a new law because the current law was "forcing districts into one-size-fits-all solutions that just don't work," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said at the time.

In the meantime, the old law continues to impose student test score standards that keep rising every year, to the point that many states say they're unrealistic in 2012. Critics contend that the law locks states into inflexible standards focused solely on reading and math, neglecting subjects like social studies, the arts, health and physical education.

The old standards require a 100 percent rate of proficiency on standardized reading and math tests by 2014. The penalty for falling short is loss of federal funding for schools serving low-income children.

"On behalf of millions of parents, teachers, administrators and community members who fight for all children every day, we urge you to join us in prioritizing education by coming together to reauthorize and fix No Child Left Behind. We've waited long enough," Betsy Landers, president of the National PTA, wrote in an open letter to President Barack Obama last month.

Torlakson agreed, telling state educators: "The appropriate solution is for Congress to reauthorize the ESEA, replace its inflexible requirements with provisions that accommodate the differences in state policy approaches, and give districts adequate flexibility to improve student achievement."

But that doesn't appear likely to happen any time soon, with Congress transfixed by the looming "fiscal cliff" and immigration reform.

"At the moment, it's unclear if there is a real commitment and consensus in Congress for reauthorizing," Duncan told the Council of Chief State School Officers in a speech last month. "I wish there was a clear commitment and consensus."

via NBC News

Long Beach school board may cut another $13 million

LONG BEACH - The Long Beach Unified Board of Education today will consider closing summer school and freezing open teaching positions next year in a round of budget cuts meant to save $13 million.

While the passage of Proposition 30 prevented severe program cuts, the district is still facing a $20 million deficit in the 2012-2013 fiscal year due to years of state funding cuts, officials said.

The sales tax hike passed last month is meant to provide funding for California's schools.

The district's structural deficit would have ballooned to $55 million next year had Prop. 30 failed, officials said.

The LBUSD is projecting a $57 million deficit by the end of the 2014-2015 fiscal year if it doesn't make reductions.

The first phase of proposed reductions for a savings of $13.8 million includes: Closing grades six through seven at Burcham School, transportation reductions, eliminating summer school in 2013, eliminating the AVID college prep program, cuts to special education, and freezing open positions for teachers and other staff.

As part of this reduction plan, the board last month voted to close Monroe K-8 school in Lakewood for a savings of $2.7 million. The closing of the AVID program, which stands for Advancement Via Individual Determination, would save $1 million annually.

The board in coming months is expected to also consider other budget reductions, which could include more small school closures, reductionsto programs and services, and other measures designed to safeguard the LBUSD's fiscal health, officials said.

The Board of Education meets today at 5 p.m. at 1515 Hughes Way.

via Press Telegram