local policy

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.)

Nebraska City’s 2010 Anti-Immigrant Ordinance Comically Off Target, and Irritating to Business

/ The Old Crank

The City of Fremont, Nebraska is providing a good case study on how anti-immigration efforts can backfire. Despite the fact that, according to this article, no one in Fremont has any idea how many of its 1,259 non-citizens are illegal immigrants, (or if there are any at all) anti-immigrant petitioners managed to get a referendum passed in 2010 that requires companies to verify the citizenship status of the people they hire, while forcing renters to swear to landlords that they are legal residents and pay a $5 fee for the pleasure.

But the law doesn’t really do much of anything other than irritate the local business community and antagonize the city’s Hispanic residents. A federal judge threw out part  of it, (because it was in conflict with federal law), making the rental verification piece utterly toothless (the city isn’t allowed to revoke the rental permits if applicants actually turn out to be illegal immigrants); and the hiring verification piece won’t have any effect beyond the city limits of Fremont, which is where most of the immigrant population in the area actually lives and works.

Meanwhile, business owners hate the new rules:

“I’ve spoken to a few businesses owners about it, and … they definitely feel this is just another burden for them,” [mayoral candidate] Paden said. “I don’t feel that it should be up to the businesses to police these matters. We have federal agencies that should be handling that. All this ordinance is now is another hoop to jump through.”

Ron Tillery, with the Fremont Area Chamber of Commerce, questioned Tuesday how effective the ordinance will be. Most of Fremont’s businesses already comply with the E-Verify requirements, he said, and the new housing permits seem to serve little purpose in the wake of the judge’s ruling. He said the city will incur costs to process the rental permits but won’t be allowed to act on the information and deny any permits.

The article also notes that the City Council president, mayor, city attorney and city administrator have all resigned within the last year, suggesting that the fallout from the ordinance is to blame.

So if the law is largely toothless, opposed by the business community, and poison to political leaders in town, what is the point of it?

Petition organizer Jerry Hart said he knows the ordinance won’t eliminate illegal immigration, but he hopes it will inspire other cities and states to act.

“Our goal when we started was just to get the issue to a vote of the people,” Hart said. “The people of Fremont let it be known that they don’t want illegal immigrants in their community.” (my emphasis)

A local grocery owner says, according the article, that the ordinance “is not about illegal (immigrants). It’s about race. The people behind it don’t want Hispanics here.”