Civil Rights

Faith-Based Policymaking in West Virginia

/ The Old Crank

From an article published today in the Charleston Gazette on West Virginia Governor Tomblin’s executive order requiring drug testing for anyone participating in training programs funded under the federal Workforce Investment Act:

Labor union leaders and other worker advocates have questioned the push for workforce-related drug screenings. West Virginia AFL-CIO President Kenny Perdue called on the state’s major industries to provide more information amid concerns that the drug issue has become an excuse to hire out-of-state.

“I do believe that the over-abuse of drugs in this state is not as bad as everybody makes it to be,” Perdue said Tuesday. “I’ve talked to too many people and learned of too many cases that show that it’s not as serious as they say.”

Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, said his group has no hard data but that he encounters businesses with this concern in all parts of the state.

“Many employers really do have trouble finding people to hire who are eligible to work, who have the skills the employer requires and who can pass a drug test,” Roberts said Tuesday. “I have to believe that the problem is significant, or I wouldn’t be hearing it every place I go.”

Is the Potential Elimination of Adult Education in Los Angeles Our Wisconsin Moment?

/ The Old Crank
latimes-march14

Photo of the front page of the March 14th edition of the Los Angeles Times, from the Save Adult Ed! Web site.

About a year ago, Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times described the effort by Governor Walker of Wisconsin to slash the collective bargaining rights of his state’s public employees as a potential “watershed for public-sector unions, perhaps signaling the beginning of a decline in their power — both at the bargaining table and in politics.”

The situation in Wisconsin galvanized the labor movement and resulted in a massive protest that engaged people from around the country. I’ve been thinking about those protests the last couple of months as I’ve been following the school budget situation in Los Angeles, where the school board has decided to completely shut down adult education unless new revenue or teacher pay cuts are accepted. Eliminating adult education in L.A. would cut off adult education services to well over 300,000 people.

There are a lot of differences between the crisis in L.A. what was happening in Wisconsin a year ago in many, many fundamental ways. For one thing, the effort to dismantle public sector unions in Wisconsin was connected to an organized, long-standing national political agenda, and to my knowledge there is no political party with a specific agenda to dismantle adult education. Secondly, adult education ever had the political clout or recognition that organized labor has. But I do think an argument can be made that the attempt to shut down adult education in L.A. is a similar “watershed” moment for the field, both because of the scale of the protests (500 people at the rally yesterday), and, possibly, the ramifications. If adult education services at this scale, and with such visible, active support, can simply be dropped—if the city and the school board, in other words, gets away with doing this—does this send a message to policymakers across the country that they can get away with it too? Granted, adult education has never been in a very secure position in most states; as noted by CLASP, several states have been cutting funding for adult education dramatically the last few years, and Arizona dropped state funding altogether in 2010.

But eliminating a program of this size is, I believe, unprecedented (by comparison, according to CLASP, Arizona’s 2010 cut dropped services for 40,000 people). For this reason, it feels like a dangerous line in the sand that the adult education field should not allow to be crossed, similar to the way in which labor leaders realized that the fight in Wisconsin last year had ramifications that went well beyond Wisconsin state borders.

Here is a video of the guy with the megaphone above. He was living under a bridge before he learned English:

LAUSD Board Approves Budget Proposal They Say Could Allow Adult Education to Continue (Updated)

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

march-13-rally-saveadulted-lausd-headquarters(UPDATED BELOW)

Last month, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board held off on a proposal to completely eliminate the LAUSD’s adult education program, which would have left over 300,000 adult students without adult education services in Los Angeles.

According the L.A. Weekly, the Board instead asked Superintendent John Deasy and the unions to work together on a plan to balance the budget that would not require eliminating adult education and other programs, like pre-K services, also slated for elimination. According to the Weekly, Deasy started that ball rolling at the meeting by specifically pitching a parcel tax proposal just before the Board voted on the matter—one that “he and Board President Monica Garcia mentioned at every opportunity throughout the meeting.” Moreover, the Superintendent implored those speaking against the program eliminations to support such a tax proposal. (Some suggested at the time that the proposal to zero out adult education might, in fact, have been “orchestrated by district officials to galvanize support” for the tax increase.)

Today, as reported in the Contra Costa Times, the Board met and approved the plan the Superintendent came up with, which not only includes the parcel tax proposal (specifically, putting a $298 parcel tax on the November ballot to raise $255 million a year for the next five years), but also would require request LAUSD labor unions to accept a one-year pay cut across the board (!), which they estimate will save another $220 million. If both of these things are approved, Deasy says LAUSD will be able to continue adult education (although my guess from that language is that this does not necessarily mean that the budget for adult education services might not be reduced) and other services that have been threatened with elimination.

UPDATE, 3/14: A different story appearing in the same paper says that the vote was for “a worst-case budget that would gut popular programs like Adult and Early-Childhood Education for 2012-13, although a recent infusion of state money allowed officials to hold out hope of restoring some programs by fall.” That seems to be consistent with this post, although I still don’t understand what exactly has been cut and when those cuts would go in to effect or potentially be restored. I think the bottom line is that the proposal appears to do something short of eliminating adult education completely while leaving it’s budgetary future more than a little murky.

UPDATE 2, 3/14: More stories out today that clarify this a bit better. Basically, I’ve got this right, but the way I characterized it originally is a bit more hopeful-sounding than it should have been.

According to  in The Huffington Post, (citing the  Daily News) Deasy’s plan is a worst-case scenario plan that does in fact eliminate adult education and other programs—which is more or less just like the old plan, but with two differences:

1. Deasy was able to make a $180-million readjustment to the deficit projection as a result of, according to the Los Angeles Times, “a variety of unexpected good news, including the restoration of projected cuts to transportation, higher-than-expected state lottery revenue and a decrease in projected benefits expenditures.” As a result, the district was able to maintain some programs in the plan as it now stands, such as career and technical training for high school students.

2. Adult Education and several other programs, on the other hand, are still eliminated in this plan. The difference is that they could still be restored if the parcel tax increase is approved by the voters and/or the unions accept the across-the-board pay cut he has proposed.

In other words, the plan doesn’t assume that the revenue/savings ideas will go forward. It’s a worst-case plan that leaves some hope for adult education restoration, but no promises.

In order to pass, parcel taxes need the approval of two-thirds of voters. LAUSD’s last parcel tax measure in 2010 was defeated with 52 percent of the vote. I have no idea how likely it is that the unions will accept the pay cut proposal and too tired to find out. But I can guess it will not be (has not been?) warmly received.

Some adult education advocates in Los Angeles have strong opinions about the financial mess that LAUSD and how to resolve them that go to more fundamental issues of fairness and economic justice. In fact, for those interested, there is a lot more to read about the situation in L.A. here and here. (The second link is to a Web site set up by L.A. adult education advocates.)

(In addition to the updates above, the headline has been re-written to better reflect the tenuous nature of the possibility that adult education will be restored.)

National Coalition for Literacy Issues Action Alert on H.R. 3630

/ The Old Crank

(updated below)

Update on my post from this past Saturday on H.R. 3630, (“The Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act of 2011″), a Republican-sponsored House bill that, among other things, denies UI benefits to individuals who lack a high school diploma unless they are enrolled in classes that will lead to a GED or another “state-recognized equivalent.”

First, and most importantly, the National Coalition for Literacy (NCL) has issued an Action Alert for those of you interested in contacting your member of the House of Representative about this bill. The vote is scheduled for tonight, so if you want to do so, there isn’t much time. While there is very little chance that this bill would pass in the Senate, it’s still important to raise objections if  you are concerned about this bill’s approach to extending UI. Some kind of UI extension is going to pass this week, and while I have no reason to expect this high school/GED requirement to make it into whatever bill eventually is approved, it’s worth raising objections now if you want to increase the odds  that it does not return. (I serve on the board of NCL and worked with others in the coalition on the alert—if you have any questions or comments about it, feel free to let me know.)

Also, in my earlier post, I focused in on the high school diploma/GED requirement in the bill, but it’s worth pointing out that other groups have objected to many other provisions in the bill. If you are interested in those other issues, you may want to read this legislative update from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) on the bill.

NELP did raise a point in their analysis of the high school diploma/GED requirement that I did not think of, which is that unemployment insurance eligibility is supposed to be driven solely by loss of employment and employer payments into the applicable unemployment insurance trust funds on behalf of their employees—and not based on income level, educational attainment, or other characteristics of the unemployed worker. That’s a good point, and we included it in the NCL talking points.

I disagree slightly with NELP’s analysis of the waiver provision (see my earlier post). While the authors of this paper agree that the lack of clarity to the waiver provision makes it ineffectual, they assume that the burden referred to is the burden on an individual applying for benefits—not on the state in administrating the provision. I actually don’t think it’s clear at all. If anything, I think the language suggests the burden to be considered is the state’s administrative burden, which offers no protection to individuals at all.

All of which is to say I think this provision in the bill is even worse than the folks at NELP do, and they really hate this bill.

UPDATE (12/14/11): The House passed the bill last night, 234-193. Again, there is little chance this bill in its present form will pass into law. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has already vowed to reject it, and the President has said he would veto it anyway.