State Policy

Los Angeles School Board Votes Tomorrow on a Cut that Could Deprive Thousands of Children the Support They Need to Succeed in School

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

Tomorrow the Los Angeles Unified School District Board may vote in favor of a budget cut that could result in thousands of children being deprived of the support they need to succeed in school. As permitted by California state law, the board is set to vote Tuesday on a proposal to cut most of the $200 million in state money earmarked for adult education in order to address the district’s $557 million deficit.

As I noted last December, school districts all over California have been shifting dollars away from adult education to shore up K-12 budgets for the last several years because of a provision in the California Budget Act (CBA) which allows school districts to do this when budgets are tight. Los Angeles is the highest profile example to date.

The choice here is not about decimating the adult education system in Los Angeles so that the status quo in K-12 education can be preserved. It’s about choosing a course of action that would be disastrous for many K-12 students as well. As noted in this article on the impact of the cut on one particular adult community school in the district, the loss of adult education impacts not just the adults but the educational success of the children of those adults who are parents or caregivers.

Administrators and faculty at South Gate Community Adult School believe that cutting adult education will affect students at the K-12 campuses, and especially in areas with a high immigrant population. In those communities, parents are learning skills at the adult schools that allow them to help their children academically.

“This morning, we had role play, where a parent was at a conference with their child’s math teacher,” said John Liddle, teacher of English as a second language at South Gate Community Adult School. Using such situations to learn English interest immigrant parents, who want to understand their children’s school experience in the United States. “We use topics that are of high interest to [adult] students, such as health, jobs and parenting,” he said.

Dario Aleman, 41, was a medical doctor in Cuba before arriving in the United States in May 2010. Learning English is very important to him since he hopes to become fluent and renew his medical license. However, the adult classes also help him as a parent, since he can better prepare and help his 6-year-old son.

“If you prepare adults, the adults will then prepare their children,” said Aleman, who is also taking computer skills classes. “We want our children to be excellent [students] in the future.”

It gets worse: According to the article above, adult schools in the District served about 100,000 K-12 students with “catchup” classes so that they could graduate on time from high school.

The scope of the cuts has been so great in California that, arguably, the CBA is the worst piece of legislation for adult education in the entire U.S. over the last several years. If the LAUSD goes through with this cut, I don’t think it will be arguable anymore. Even worse, as research continues to emerge linking the education success of parents and caregivers to children’s success in school, the negative impact on school success generally may be felt in California for a generation.

Georgia Senators Introduce Legislation to Require Food Stamp Recipients to Participate in Educational Activities

/ The Old Crank

In December, a group of state Senators in Georgia introduced legislation that would mandate participation in “personal growth activities” for those otherwise eligible for food stamps to retain eligibility. The language is vague about what constitutes a “personal growth activity,” so on the face of it, this requirement doesn’t appear to be as difficult to meet as, for example, the education requirement being considered by the House of Representatives in their UI extension proposal.

I have no idea whether this bill is likely to become law. But it’s interesting to keep track of proposals like this, i.e. proposals to link eligibility for certain government benefits programs with participation in adult education activities.

Here is the full text of the proposed amendment (the new language is underlined):

SECTION 1.

Chapter 4 of Title 49 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to public assistance, is amended in Article 1, relating to general provisions, by adding a new Code section to read as follows:

“49-4-20.

(a) In order to be eligible for food stamps, an applicant shall engage in personal growth activities, which may include, but not be limited to, working toward a general educational development (GED) diploma, if not a high school graduate; pursuing technical education; attending self-development classes; and enrolling in an adult literacy class.

(b) The department shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement the requirements of this Code section.

(c) This Code section shall not apply to an applicant who is employed at least 40 hours per week.

(d) The commissioner may, by regulation, waive or alter the requirements of this Code section for cases or situations in which the commissioner finds that compliance with the requirements would be oppressive or inconsistent with the purposes of this article.“

The bill also amends a section of Title 49 related to TANF administration, so that “personal growth activities” programs are included in the “personal responsibility obligations” required of TANF recipients, and, similar to the provision above, adds “working toward a general educational development (GED) diploma, if not a high school graduate; pursuing technical education; attending self-development classes; and enrolling in an adult literacy class” as examples of such acitvities. I’m not familiar enough with Georgia TANF administration to know whether that language would be likely to support more TANF recipients to enroll in adult education.

More Dangers in House UI Extension Proposal

/ The Old Crank

Last week, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) issued a new report on a bill that the House passed in December (H.R. 3630) to extend the Social Security payroll tax cut and extend unemployment insurance (UI). One of the provisions in that bill would have denied UI benefits to workers without a high school diploma or GED. Congress eventually passed a two-month payroll tax cut and UI extension bill without any restrictions, but it is expected that Republicans in the House are going to push to include many of the provisions in their bill to be included in any legislation to extend the payroll tax cut and UI through the end of this year.

Adult education advocates have been focused on the GED/High School Diploma requirement in SEC. 2122 of that bill, as noted above. (You can read why this is such a bad idea in an earlier CBPP paper here.) Reading CBPP’s latest paper, it appears to me that the state waiver provisions in that bill should also be of concern to adult education advocates, assuming they are proposed again.

Under SEC. 2123 of H.R. 3630, up to 10 states could apply for waivers that would exempt them from key federal requirements for state UI systems, so that they may conduct “demonstration projects” designed either to “expedite the reemployment of individuals” or “improve the effectiveness of a State in carrying out its State law with respect to reemployment.” Specifically, they could obtain waivers from these critical requirements:

  1. Section 3304(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires that “all money withdrawn from the unemployment fund of the State shall be used solely in the payment of unemployment compensation, exclusive of expenses of administration.”
  2. Paragraph (1) of section 303(a) of the Social Security Act, which requires that state methods of administration to be” reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.”
  3. Paragraph (5) of section 303(a) of the Social Security Act, which, again, requires the expenditure of all money withdrawn from a state unemployment fund to be used in the payment of unemployment compensation, exclusive of expenses of administration.

The CBPP paper offers a strong overall critique of these waiver requirements which I encourage you to read. Here are the two specific areas of concern I see from an adult education policy and advocacy perspective:

First, a waiver of the first requirement above would allow states to collect unemployment taxes from employers and then turn around and use those funds for purposes other than paying out UI benefits. I agree with CBPP that this “would start the UI system down a slippery slope that would alter its fundamental nature.” But I can also imagine demonstration projects funded through these waivers that provide new adult education and job training opportunities. (CBPP suggests that as a possibility in their paper.) Since these programs provide unemployed people with skills that should improve their employment prospects, this might seem like a reasonable idea, especially during good times, when states may have a surplus of UI funds (i.e. low unemployment, so more money is going into the system then is going out in the form of benefits). A new source of funding for adult education and job training is always tantalizing.

But it will be just as tempting for legislators to divert those funds elsewhere. How would they able to do this? As the authors of CBPP’s paper explain, the House proposal would “enable states to replace state or local funds now used for job training or other such purposes with diverted UI funds and then to shift the withdrawn funds to other uses.” CBPP suggests tax cuts, and I think that sounds pretty realistic. In other words, the fear is that states will cut their current expenditures on adult education or job training, replace that money with funds from their Unemployment Trust Fund, and take the money they cut and spend it on whatever they like—including tax cuts. This would result in a zero net gain in adult education or job training resources.

It also seems to me that using UI funds for other purposes might significantly destabilize a state’s UI system. If state Unemployment Trust Fund dollars are allowed to be used in part for other purposes—even good ones—what assurances are there that sufficient funds will be available for benefits when the economy goes into a downturn and UI benefit claims soar? During bad times, with less UI tax revenue coming in, and more workers applying for benefits, will we be facing a “bankrupt” UI system that can’t pay out the benefits that workers have earned? Will states then be more inclined to cut benefit levels and/or reduce the number of weeks one can collect benefits?

My second concern has to do with language in SEC. 2123 that may allow states to impose their own new eligibility requirements. The authors of the CBPP paper argue that by allowing states to waive the requirements described above, states will also, by implication, no longer be bound by the definition of “compensation” in Section 3304 of the Internal Revenue Code. This definition basically restricts states from defining eligibility for UI compensation outside of conditions related to their unemployment. According to CBPP, the waivers would allow states “to condition receipt of benefits on factors unrelated to workers’ having amassed a sufficient work record, having become unemployed due to no fault of their own, and looking for a new job.” (my emphasis) This would open the door for states to impose new eligibility requirements and restrictions of their own—such as requiring UI recipients to have a high school diploma or GED.

In other words, these “demonstration project” waivers contained in the House bill could be a backdoor way for states to impose the same educational eligibility requirements that the House would like to impose at the federal level.

So it seems equally important to argue against these state waiver provisions as well as the GED/High School Diploma requirement contained in SEC. 2122. If SEC. 2122 is stripped from whatever bill emerges, but the waiver language remains, it appears that some states would be able to go move forward with similar eligibility restrictions—or worse.

Lack of ESOL Services in New York State Hurting Their Economy

/ The Old Crank

As noted in the New York Times yesterday, the Center for an Urban Future has just issued a report that found the demand for ESOL classes across the state of New York rapidly accelerating in recent years, while the availability of classes has decreased. The report says that state funding for ESOL programs in New York has dropped every year since 1995.

The report frames this issue in economic terms. The authors say that “increasing English instruction capacity would almost certainly yield benefits for the state economy,” and that the failure of the state to meet the demand for ESOL services “threatens the state’s ability to tap the skills of immigrant entrepreneurs and workers to strengthen local economies.”