adult history Perspective: Kristen Pursley on Keeping ESL & Citizenship Free - japraklupo

September 2015 - Hallo sahabat fashion, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul September 2015, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan Artikel Community College, Artikel fees, Artikel K12 and CC Coordination, Artikel Legislature, Artikel Perspective, Artikel Regional Consortia, yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.

Judul : adult history Perspective: Kristen Pursley on Keeping ESL & Citizenship Free - japraklupo
link : adult history Perspective: Kristen Pursley on Keeping ESL & Citizenship Free - japraklupo

September 2015

From Kristen Pursley's Save Your Adult School blog:

Adult School English as a Second Language and Citizenship Classes Must Be Offered Free Again – Let’s Keep It That Way!

by kpursley

Under California law, adult school English as a Second Language (ESL) and Citizenship classes must once again be offered free of charge. AB 189, a 2011 emergency measure allowing adult schools to charge for these classes until July 2015, expired this year, and was not renewed or extended.  AB 189 legitimized a haphazard pattern of charging for ESL and Citizenship classes that sprang up in the wake of California’s 2008 budget crisis and the resulting “categorical flexibility” that removed protections on state adult school funds.  While some districts chose not to charge for adult school ESL and Citizenship classes, others worked out their own systems for charging with no overall coordination at the state level or, often, consultation with neighboring districts. The result was a patchwork system of charges  that varied greatly from region to region as to whether students paid,  how much they  paid if there were fees,  and whether they paid by the year, by semester or by class.  This system has now been dismantled, at least for the present, and adult schools are again mandated to offer ESL and Citizenship classes free of charge.

Hit the "read more" link to learn more.

The battle over whether to charge fees for adult school ESL and Citizenship classes is far from over.  During the 2015-2016 school year, while adult schools are adjusting to once again offering these classes free of charge, the California Department of Education  (CDE) and the Community College Chancellor’s Office  will be developing recommendations regarding  a statewide fee policy for adult education.  In current California policyspeak, “adult education” refers to both adult schools and community colleges, so community college noncredit programs should take note: the CDE and Chancellor’s Office may recommend fees for noncredit community college ESL classes as well.

If fees for both adult school and noncredit community college ESL and Citizenship classes go into effect permanently, California stands to lose an infrastructure of free ESL instruction that has been in existence, in one form or another, since the late 19^th Century.  In a state with a large immigrant population, and a great reliance on immigrant labor, destroying this infrastructure would be a risky gamble, to say the least.

However, the CDE and the Chancellor’s Office could also recommend that adult school and community college noncredit ESL and Citizenship classes continue to be offered free of charge.  There are indications that there may be support at the state level for keeping these classes free.  The fact that AB 189, which would originally have permanently legalized fees for ESL and Citizenship, could not pass without a sunset date is one such indication.  The fact that AB 189 was not extended is another.

At a March 11, 2015 joint hearing before the California Assembly Education, Assembly Higher Education, and Senate Education committees, representatives of the CDE and Community College Chancellor’s office made a final report on the AB86 consortia.  One of their findings was that the financial burden on adult students needs to be reduced, and they reported that they had initially recommended that there be no fees for classes offered through the consortia, which include ESL and Citizenship classes.  While this recommendation was resisted by adult schools , who said they could not survive without the fees, the fact that the CDE and  Community College Chancellors’ Office  made this joint recommendation is yet another indication that there may be support at the state level for keeping ESL and Citizenship classes free.

Undoubtedly, the loss of the ability to charge has been a blow to at least some districts that had come to rely on student fees for ESL classes.  The state has finally restored protected funding for adult schools, but just barely.  The Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) funds adult schools in the amount their districts were funding them at the very nadir or their decline, in 2012-2013.  The block grant funding doesn’t come anywhere near giving California’s devastated adult schools the money they need to rebuild.  And, of course, it does not take into account funds they were getting from other sources in order to survive, such as student fees.

However, charging fees for ESL and Citizenship classes was never more than an inadequate band aid over the gaping wound of woefully inadequate funding for adult schools. It may have allowed adult schools to do a little more than they might otherwise have been able to do; it certainly didn’t save them if their districts decided to take all their state funds. Now that charges for ESL and Citizenship classes are again illegal, the best course of action is to advocate for adequate funding for adult schools, rather than putting a lot of energy into trying to get the fees restored.

The CDE/Community College Chancellor’s Office recommendation that fees be abolished was consistent with the mandate of the AB86 Consortia, which is to remove barriers to education for California’s adults.  Because financial considerations can definitely be a barrier, arguing for the reinstatement of fees that have been abolished will be an uphill battle at best.

AB 189 was discriminatory.  It allowed fees for ESL and Citizenship classes, but did not authorize fees for adult school Basic Skills and High School Diploma programs.  Almost certainly the marginalized status of immigrants played a role in the decision to charge for classes that serve them while providing that other kinds of classes must still be offered free.

It is easy to see why school districts, and some policymakers, would favor charging ESL students for their classes.  There are a lot of them.  ESL programs are usually by far the largest program in any adult school; in tough times, administrators must look at all the ESL students and think, “If only we could make them pay!”  So, during the economic crisis, the state passed a temporary law that allowed California’s financially ravaged  adult schools to balance their budgets on the backs of ESL students who were also suffering grievously from the financial collapse.  Immigrants, partly because they did not speak English well and did not have adequate access to information about how things work in the US, were prime targets of scams associated with the financial crisis.  Many lost jobs and homes at the same time they were having to come up with money for ESL classes.

Now, ESL students have helped adult schools weather their crisis. Adult schools have dedicated funding again, inadequate though it may be. California is experiencing a strong economic recovery.  We are no longer dealing with an emergency, and are instead in a position to make sound educational policy.  In this calmer situation, hopefully, educational leaders and policymakers will start looking at California’s large population of adult English learners as a group of students with unique educational needs and challenges, rather than simply as so many cash cows.  In considering whether to charge fees for ESL classes, policymakers should consider the following:

1. It takes between 5 and 7 years to learn a second language well. Learning a new language is a long haul, and takes persistence over time. ESL students are busy adults, and their learning is often interrupted by changing work schedules, family responsibilities, and health issues. Charging for classes would add yet another interruption for low income students, who would have to stop coming to school whenever they were strapped for funds.  In the course of 5 to 7 years, such a situation is likely to come up at least once, if not multiple times, for students of modest means.
2. Twelve to fifteen hours of class time a week is optimal for language learning. This means the students who learn the fastest are those who take more than one ESL class at a time. Students sense this, and students who have the time will sometimes enroll in morning, afternoon and evening classes in order to accelerate their learning. Charging by the class would put this effective learning strategy beyond the reach of many.
3. ESL students need classes in their communities. ESL students often lack access to transportation; many walk or bike to class. Mothers of school age children fit in their learning around their children’s school schedule, and need classes near schools their children attend so they can pick their kids up after class.  Classes embedded in communities where immigrants live and work, in local K-12 school classrooms, churches, or community based organizations, are an excellent way to overcome the transportation barrier and serve these students.  But charging fees puts pressure on adult schools to centralize their services.  There are financial accountability and safety concerns with teachers collecting money in class, so students need to go to a central site to pay.  Those who cannot make it to the central site are locked out of classes.
4. ESL students have plenty of skin in the game. One argument for charging fees is that you want students to have “skin in the game”, in other words, they won’t try hard in classes they haven’t paid for. But no one has more skin in the game than an immigrant trying to survive in a country where she doesn’t speak the language. She is surrounded every day by spoken and written language she doesn’t understand. She’s afraid to answer the phone because she might not be able to understand the caller.  And when her child asks her for help with homework she can’t read, her heart is in the game, too.  An extra $15, $30 or even $50 isn’t going to make much of a difference in terms of her commitment.
5. Publicly funded ESL classes are a good investment. Educated workers earn more and bring more money into the community. Educated parents become involved in their children’s schools and help their children succeed academically. ESL classes connect families to services and information; students become involved in their communities and even have better health outcomes because they learn about nutrition , learn safety measures and  find out where to get medical attention.  ESL instruction does not benefit the student alone; it benefits the entire community in which the student lives.  Public money invested in ESL classes pays off handsomely in the form of stronger families, improved community health, and a more skilled workforce.
6. ESL instruction for adults is properly part of public education. Without being able to read the minds of the authors of AB 189, it isn’t possible to know exactly why the bill authorizes charges for adult ESL classes, but not for Adult Basic Education (the equivalent of an elementary school education) or High School Diploma classes. One possible explanation is that Adult Basic Education and High School Diploma programs complete the mission of the K-12 schools by providing free instruction for adults equivalent to what children receive in the public schools.  This is a very sensible policy decision, but it is important to realize that ESL students are also receiving a basic education.  ESL students are often promoted into Adult Basic Education programs when they reach the top level of ESL.

Free classes for immigrant adults, including English classes, grew up right alongside public education for children in California, and are not separate from it.  The first free evening program for adults, established in San Francisco in 1871, predates free public high school by several decades.  Implementing fees for adult ESL classes would constitute a radical break from a tradition that goes back to California’s first few decades as a state.  California has been through financial ups and downs before, many times since 1871, without having to break with this tradition.  Even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, free ESL classes were maintained.  In the midst of a strong economic recovery, and with a mandate to bring down barriers for adult learners, what excuse do we have to start charging now?

Whatever your thoughts about fees for adult ESL classes, for or against, lawmakers and policymakers need to hear from you.  Here is a list of public officials who should be contacted about this issue:

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson

California Department of Education

1430 N Street

Sacramento, CA  95814-5901

California Community College Chancellor’s Office

Karen Gilmer, Assistant to Chancellor Brice Harris

kgilmer@ccco.edu

(916) 322-4005

Senator Kevin de León

Senate President Pro Tempore

State Capitol, Room 205

Sacramento, CA  95814

Assembly Member Toni G. Atkins

Speaker of the Assembly

State Capitol

P.O. Box 94549-0078

Senator Carol Liu

Chair, Senate Education Committee

State Capitol, Room 5097

Sacramento, CA   95814

Assembly Member Patrick O’Donnell

Chair, Assembly Committee on Education

State Capitol, Room 4166

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA  94249-0070

Assembly Member José Medina

Chair, Assembly Higher Education Committee

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA  94249-0061

Assembly Member Luis Alejo

Chair, Latino Legislative Caucus

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA  94249-0030

Assembly Member Das Williams

Chair, Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA  94249-0037

And your local representatives.  For Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Berkeley, and part of Oakland these are:

Senator Loni Hancock

1515 Clay Street, Suite 2202

Oakland, CA  94612

Assembly Member Tony Thurmond

1515 Clay Stret, Suite 2201

Oakland, CA 94612

www.asmdc.org/thurmond

You can find your local representative here: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

From Kristen Pursley's Save Your Adult School blog:

Adult School English as a Second Language and Citizenship Classes Must Be Offered Free Again – Let’s Keep It That Way!

by kpursley

Under California law, adult school English as a Second Language (ESL) and Citizenship classes must once again be offered free of charge. AB 189, a 2011 emergency measure allowing adult schools to charge for these classes until July 2015, expired this year, and was not renewed or extended.  AB 189 legitimized a haphazard pattern of charging for ESL and Citizenship classes that sprang up in the wake of California’s 2008 budget crisis and the resulting “categorical flexibility” that removed protections on state adult school funds.  While some districts chose not to charge for adult school ESL and Citizenship classes, others worked out their own systems for charging with no overall coordination at the state level or, often, consultation with neighboring districts. The result was a patchwork system of charges  that varied greatly from region to region as to whether students paid,  how much they  paid if there were fees,  and whether they paid by the year, by semester or by class.  This system has now been dismantled, at least for the present, and adult schools are again mandated to offer ESL and Citizenship classes free of charge.

Hit the "read more" link to learn more.

The battle over whether to charge fees for adult school ESL and Citizenship classes is far from over.  During the 2015-2016 school year, while adult schools are adjusting to once again offering these classes free of charge, the California Department of Education  (CDE) and the Community College Chancellor’s Office  will be developing recommendations regarding  a statewide fee policy for adult education.  In current California policyspeak, “adult education” refers to both adult schools and community colleges, so community college noncredit programs should take note: the CDE and Chancellor’s Office may recommend fees for noncredit community college ESL classes as well.

If fees for both adult school and noncredit community college ESL and Citizenship classes go into effect permanently, California stands to lose an infrastructure of free ESL instruction that has been in existence, in one form or another, since the late 19^th Century.  In a state with a large immigrant population, and a great reliance on immigrant labor, destroying this infrastructure would be a risky gamble, to say the least.

However, the CDE and the Chancellor’s Office could also recommend that adult school and community college noncredit ESL and Citizenship classes continue to be offered free of charge.  There are indications that there may be support at the state level for keeping these classes free.  The fact that AB 189, which would originally have permanently legalized fees for ESL and Citizenship, could not pass without a sunset date is one such indication.  The fact that AB 189 was not extended is another.

At a March 11, 2015 joint hearing before the California Assembly Education, Assembly Higher Education, and Senate Education committees, representatives of the CDE and Community College Chancellor’s office made a final report on the AB86 consortia.  One of their findings was that the financial burden on adult students needs to be reduced, and they reported that they had initially recommended that there be no fees for classes offered through the consortia, which include ESL and Citizenship classes.  While this recommendation was resisted by adult schools , who said they could not survive without the fees, the fact that the CDE and  Community College Chancellors’ Office  made this joint recommendation is yet another indication that there may be support at the state level for keeping ESL and Citizenship classes free.

Undoubtedly, the loss of the ability to charge has been a blow to at least some districts that had come to rely on student fees for ESL classes.  The state has finally restored protected funding for adult schools, but just barely.  The Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) funds adult schools in the amount their districts were funding them at the very nadir or their decline, in 2012-2013.  The block grant funding doesn’t come anywhere near giving California’s devastated adult schools the money they need to rebuild.  And, of course, it does not take into account funds they were getting from other sources in order to survive, such as student fees.

However, charging fees for ESL and Citizenship classes was never more than an inadequate band aid over the gaping wound of woefully inadequate funding for adult schools. It may have allowed adult schools to do a little more than they might otherwise have been able to do; it certainly didn’t save them if their districts decided to take all their state funds. Now that charges for ESL and Citizenship classes are again illegal, the best course of action is to advocate for adequate funding for adult schools, rather than putting a lot of energy into trying to get the fees restored.

The CDE/Community College Chancellor’s Office recommendation that fees be abolished was consistent with the mandate of the AB86 Consortia, which is to remove barriers to education for California’s adults.  Because financial considerations can definitely be a barrier, arguing for the reinstatement of fees that have been abolished will be an uphill battle at best.

AB 189 was discriminatory.  It allowed fees for ESL and Citizenship classes, but did not authorize fees for adult school Basic Skills and High School Diploma programs.  Almost certainly the marginalized status of immigrants played a role in the decision to charge for classes that serve them while providing that other kinds of classes must still be offered free.

It is easy to see why school districts, and some policymakers, would favor charging ESL students for their classes.  There are a lot of them.  ESL programs are usually by far the largest program in any adult school; in tough times, administrators must look at all the ESL students and think, “If only we could make them pay!”  So, during the economic crisis, the state passed a temporary law that allowed California’s financially ravaged  adult schools to balance their budgets on the backs of ESL students who were also suffering grievously from the financial collapse.  Immigrants, partly because they did not speak English well and did not have adequate access to information about how things work in the US, were prime targets of scams associated with the financial crisis.  Many lost jobs and homes at the same time they were having to come up with money for ESL classes.

Now, ESL students have helped adult schools weather their crisis. Adult schools have dedicated funding again, inadequate though it may be. California is experiencing a strong economic recovery.  We are no longer dealing with an emergency, and are instead in a position to make sound educational policy.  In this calmer situation, hopefully, educational leaders and policymakers will start looking at California’s large population of adult English learners as a group of students with unique educational needs and challenges, rather than simply as so many cash cows.  In considering whether to charge fees for ESL classes, policymakers should consider the following:

1. It takes between 5 and 7 years to learn a second language well. Learning a new language is a long haul, and takes persistence over time. ESL students are busy adults, and their learning is often interrupted by changing work schedules, family responsibilities, and health issues. Charging for classes would add yet another interruption for low income students, who would have to stop coming to school whenever they were strapped for funds.  In the course of 5 to 7 years, such a situation is likely to come up at least once, if not multiple times, for students of modest means.
2. Twelve to fifteen hours of class time a week is optimal for language learning. This means the students who learn the fastest are those who take more than one ESL class at a time. Students sense this, and students who have the time will sometimes enroll in morning, afternoon and evening classes in order to accelerate their learning. Charging by the class would put this effective learning strategy beyond the reach of many.
3. ESL students need classes in their communities. ESL students often lack access to transportation; many walk or bike to class. Mothers of school age children fit in their learning around their children’s school schedule, and need classes near schools their children attend so they can pick their kids up after class.  Classes embedded in communities where immigrants live and work, in local K-12 school classrooms, churches, or community based organizations, are an excellent way to overcome the transportation barrier and serve these students.  But charging fees puts pressure on adult schools to centralize their services.  There are financial accountability and safety concerns with teachers collecting money in class, so students need to go to a central site to pay.  Those who cannot make it to the central site are locked out of classes.
4. ESL students have plenty of skin in the game. One argument for charging fees is that you want students to have “skin in the game”, in other words, they won’t try hard in classes they haven’t paid for. But no one has more skin in the game than an immigrant trying to survive in a country where she doesn’t speak the language. She is surrounded every day by spoken and written language she doesn’t understand. She’s afraid to answer the phone because she might not be able to understand the caller.  And when her child asks her for help with homework she can’t read, her heart is in the game, too.  An extra $15, $30 or even $50 isn’t going to make much of a difference in terms of her commitment.
5. Publicly funded ESL classes are a good investment. Educated workers earn more and bring more money into the community. Educated parents become involved in their children’s schools and help their children succeed academically. ESL classes connect families to services and information; students become involved in their communities and even have better health outcomes because they learn about nutrition , learn safety measures and  find out where to get medical attention.  ESL instruction does not benefit the student alone; it benefits the entire community in which the student lives.  Public money invested in ESL classes pays off handsomely in the form of stronger families, improved community health, and a more skilled workforce.
6. ESL instruction for adults is properly part of public education. Without being able to read the minds of the authors of AB 189, it isn’t possible to know exactly why the bill authorizes charges for adult ESL classes, but not for Adult Basic Education (the equivalent of an elementary school education) or High School Diploma classes. One possible explanation is that Adult Basic Education and High School Diploma programs complete the mission of the K-12 schools by providing free instruction for adults equivalent to what children receive in the public schools.  This is a very sensible policy decision, but it is important to realize that ESL students are also receiving a basic education.  ESL students are often promoted into Adult Basic Education programs when they reach the top level of ESL.

Free classes for immigrant adults, including English classes, grew up right alongside public education for children in California, and are not separate from it.  The first free evening program for adults, established in San Francisco in 1871, predates free public high school by several decades.  Implementing fees for adult ESL classes would constitute a radical break from a tradition that goes back to California’s first few decades as a state.  California has been through financial ups and downs before, many times since 1871, without having to break with this tradition.  Even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, free ESL classes were maintained.  In the midst of a strong economic recovery, and with a mandate to bring down barriers for adult learners, what excuse do we have to start charging now?

Whatever your thoughts about fees for adult ESL classes, for or against, lawmakers and policymakers need to hear from you.  Here is a list of public officials who should be contacted about this issue:

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson

California Department of Education

1430 N Street

Sacramento, CA  95814-5901

California Community College Chancellor’s Office

Karen Gilmer, Assistant to Chancellor Brice Harris

kgilmer@ccco.edu

(916) 322-4005

Senator Kevin de León

Senate President Pro Tempore

State Capitol, Room 205

Sacramento, CA  95814

Assembly Member Toni G. Atkins

Speaker of the Assembly

State Capitol

P.O. Box 94549-0078

Senator Carol Liu

Chair, Senate Education Committee

State Capitol, Room 5097

Sacramento, CA   95814

Assembly Member Patrick O’Donnell

Chair, Assembly Committee on Education

State Capitol, Room 4166

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA  94249-0070

Assembly Member José Medina

Chair, Assembly Higher Education Committee

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA  94249-0061

Assembly Member Luis Alejo

Chair, Latino Legislative Caucus

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA  94249-0030

Assembly Member Das Williams

Chair, Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA  94249-0037

And your local representatives.  For Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Berkeley, and part of Oakland these are:

Senator Loni Hancock

1515 Clay Street, Suite 2202

Oakland, CA  94612

Assembly Member Tony Thurmond

1515 Clay Stret, Suite 2201

Oakland, CA 94612

www.asmdc.org/thurmond

You can find your local representative here: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

adult history CCAE: At Attempt at Clarity to Avoid Audit Exceptions & Penalties - japraklupo

September 2015 - Hallo sahabat fashion, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul September 2015, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan Artikel Budget, Artikel CCAE, yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.

Judul : adult history CCAE: At Attempt at Clarity to Avoid Audit Exceptions & Penalties - japraklupo
link : adult history CCAE: At Attempt at Clarity to Avoid Audit Exceptions & Penalties - japraklupo

September 2015

From CCAE Legislative Analyst Dawn Koepke:

An Attempt at Clarity to Avoid Audit Exceptions & Penalties

We've heard from across the state that you all are working earnestly to implement the new era of adult education; however, you've also shared questions and concerns about the details of moving forward.  I believe we can all agree that the Adult Ed Block Grant provides such great opportunity and yet it is filled with provisions that, arguably, seem to lack clarity or sufficient level of detail.  As with any law or budget passed, we must always consider the intent that led to the details of the policy and budget for clues about how to address such perceived lack of clarity.  We worked hard and were at the front lines of developing the policy framework that led us to this point, so let's revisit what we believe to be true based on those discussions in an effort to provide some clarity on some of the biggest issues/questions we've heard to date.

Hit the link to learn more.

FAQ #1:            Will the Adult Education Block Grant be audited this year and how do I avoid an audit exception and penalties?

CDE has the authority to audit adult schools and their expenditures.  In order to avoid an audit exception and penalties, it is important that adult schools operate in line with the intent of AB 104 and the Adult Education Block Grant.  We've offered the following additional FAQs in an effort to help provide additional clarity on some of the key provisions under the Adult Education Block Grant.

FAQ #2:            Can LCFF funds be used for adult education?

LCFF does not prohibit the use of LCFF funds for adult education - allocation of LCFF funds are at the discretion of the school district.  That said and as you know the structure of LCFF focuses on the K-12 student, given the funding thresholds to be achieved per student under the framework school districts will inevitably look to use most of the funds for K-12 purposes in order to meet the goals and standards under LCFF.  Nevertheless, adult schools should continue to push for inclusion in its district's LCAP based on parent engagement, concurrent enrollment and other programs offered by an adult school that can and does provide value to the district's K-12 priorities.

FAQ #3:            Does the Adult Education Block Grant require a local fiscal agent?

Consortia should make their own decisions locally about whether to have a local fiscal agent or to rely on the funding to come through CDE and the school district.  As your state representatives, we want to be sure you know that there should be no concern with exercising this flexibility we worked so hard to obtain.  

FAQ #4:            Will consortia decisions to not have a local fiscal agent impact how quickly they receive funding?

While it has been characterized that lack of a local fiscal agent may result in adult schools not receiving their funding quickly, the timing should not be an issue.  To be clear, the language in AB 104 provides that the Superintendent and Chancellor must approve a schedule of allocations to consortia by October 30th with the requirement to apportion the funds to a local fiscal agent, if designated, no more than 30 days later.  For a consortium that has not designated a local fiscal agent, the Superintendent and Chancellor are required to apportion the funds no more than 30 days after receipt of a final distribution schedule from the consortium.  This only means that consortia that elect not to have a local fiscal agent will need to move quickly to finalize their local apportionment schedules so as to indicate how much the Superintendent and Chancellor should apportion to each member, which in theory could be done one day after the state apportionment numbers are finalized and submitted that day with the 30 day clock running the same schedule as a consortium with a local fiscal agent.  Presuming consortia without a local fiscal agent move quickly to finalize their local apportionment schedules, there should be no delay in receipt of funds.

FAQ #5:            Does the Adult Ed Block Grant allow for adult schools to serve concurrent, under 18 years of age students?

Nothing in AB 104 prohibits an adult school from serving students under 18 years of age.  That said, it is our interpretation based on the language of AB 104 and intent of the Department of Finance and Legislature that Adult Education Block Grant funding should be used only for adults - students 18 years or older.  For students served by adult schools who are under age 18, LCFF dollars should be sought to help cover the costs of instruction for these students.  With regard to the validity of such credits, it is our understanding that such a determination is an individual school district issue.  To the extent that a local school district accepts the credits obtained through an adult school credit recovery program funded with LCFF dollars for the purpose of a high school diploma, then the diploma should be accepted by other programs as well.

FAQ #6:            Can adult schools continue to charge fees for ESL and citizenship classes?

Although AB 189 (2011) provided fee authority for adult schools to charge fees for classes in ESL and citizenship, the caveat was that it was a time-limited authority that expired as of July 2015.  Going forward, there is no longer the authority for adult schools to charge fees for these classes.  While CCAE and CAEAA attempted to have bill language introduced that would have reinstated the fee authority until such time as the broader fee policy is established for adult education, there was unfortunately no willingness to entertain the extension of the fee authority.   Instead, we will need to work with our consortia to access the funds over and above the maintenance of capacity funding to help fill the gap.  

                        It should also be noted that AB 189 never provided authority for adult schools to charge fees for basic skills and adult secondary classes and that still remains true today.

FAQ #7:            What does the 5% administrative cap entail, allow and/or prohibit?

Recall AB 104 included language as follows:

Education Code Section 84913

                                    (b)  A consortium may use no more than 5 percent of funds allocated in a given fiscal year for the sum of the following:

     (1)  The costs of administration of these programs.

     (2)  The costs of the consortium.

While we supported an administrative cap being placed on consortia related activities, we were concerned with the lack of clarity regarding this language in that it would seemingly place the same cap on costs associated with adult schools delivering programs.  A strict interpretation of the cap would unquestionably devastate most adult schools and hinder the ability to deliver programs that ensure the best outcomes.  Based on conversations with legislative staff and the intent of the Department of Finance, they seem to be comfortable with the general approach CDE and the Chancellor's office are proposing that would not include the following items under the cap:

-       Salaries and benefits (for all staff and a consortium facilitator/staff person)  

-       Maintenance and custodial supplies    

-       Instructional Support including materials, supplies, technology and equipment    

-       Services including contracts, professional development, marketing and outreach, internships and externships

Legislative staff suggests moving forward with the understanding that these items are outside the cap and would be allowable.  Should there be a need to adjust the language or provide further clarity the Legislature is open to doing so in future legislative and/or budget activities.

If you have questions or concerns regarding this content, please contact CCAE via membership    at   ccaestate.org or CAEAA via bharper    at   cuhsd.org.  Thank you!

 

  

 

From CCAE Legislative Analyst Dawn Koepke:

An Attempt at Clarity to Avoid Audit Exceptions & Penalties

We've heard from across the state that you all are working earnestly to implement the new era of adult education; however, you've also shared questions and concerns about the details of moving forward.  I believe we can all agree that the Adult Ed Block Grant provides such great opportunity and yet it is filled with provisions that, arguably, seem to lack clarity or sufficient level of detail.  As with any law or budget passed, we must always consider the intent that led to the details of the policy and budget for clues about how to address such perceived lack of clarity.  We worked hard and were at the front lines of developing the policy framework that led us to this point, so let's revisit what we believe to be true based on those discussions in an effort to provide some clarity on some of the biggest issues/questions we've heard to date.

Hit the link to learn more.

FAQ #1:            Will the Adult Education Block Grant be audited this year and how do I avoid an audit exception and penalties?

CDE has the authority to audit adult schools and their expenditures.  In order to avoid an audit exception and penalties, it is important that adult schools operate in line with the intent of AB 104 and the Adult Education Block Grant.  We've offered the following additional FAQs in an effort to help provide additional clarity on some of the key provisions under the Adult Education Block Grant.

FAQ #2:            Can LCFF funds be used for adult education?

LCFF does not prohibit the use of LCFF funds for adult education - allocation of LCFF funds are at the discretion of the school district.  That said and as you know the structure of LCFF focuses on the K-12 student, given the funding thresholds to be achieved per student under the framework school districts will inevitably look to use most of the funds for K-12 purposes in order to meet the goals and standards under LCFF.  Nevertheless, adult schools should continue to push for inclusion in its district's LCAP based on parent engagement, concurrent enrollment and other programs offered by an adult school that can and does provide value to the district's K-12 priorities.

FAQ #3:            Does the Adult Education Block Grant require a local fiscal agent?

Consortia should make their own decisions locally about whether to have a local fiscal agent or to rely on the funding to come through CDE and the school district.  As your state representatives, we want to be sure you know that there should be no concern with exercising this flexibility we worked so hard to obtain.  

FAQ #4:            Will consortia decisions to not have a local fiscal agent impact how quickly they receive funding?

While it has been characterized that lack of a local fiscal agent may result in adult schools not receiving their funding quickly, the timing should not be an issue.  To be clear, the language in AB 104 provides that the Superintendent and Chancellor must approve a schedule of allocations to consortia by October 30th with the requirement to apportion the funds to a local fiscal agent, if designated, no more than 30 days later.  For a consortium that has not designated a local fiscal agent, the Superintendent and Chancellor are required to apportion the funds no more than 30 days after receipt of a final distribution schedule from the consortium.  This only means that consortia that elect not to have a local fiscal agent will need to move quickly to finalize their local apportionment schedules so as to indicate how much the Superintendent and Chancellor should apportion to each member, which in theory could be done one day after the state apportionment numbers are finalized and submitted that day with the 30 day clock running the same schedule as a consortium with a local fiscal agent.  Presuming consortia without a local fiscal agent move quickly to finalize their local apportionment schedules, there should be no delay in receipt of funds.

FAQ #5:            Does the Adult Ed Block Grant allow for adult schools to serve concurrent, under 18 years of age students?

Nothing in AB 104 prohibits an adult school from serving students under 18 years of age.  That said, it is our interpretation based on the language of AB 104 and intent of the Department of Finance and Legislature that Adult Education Block Grant funding should be used only for adults - students 18 years or older.  For students served by adult schools who are under age 18, LCFF dollars should be sought to help cover the costs of instruction for these students.  With regard to the validity of such credits, it is our understanding that such a determination is an individual school district issue.  To the extent that a local school district accepts the credits obtained through an adult school credit recovery program funded with LCFF dollars for the purpose of a high school diploma, then the diploma should be accepted by other programs as well.

FAQ #6:            Can adult schools continue to charge fees for ESL and citizenship classes?

Although AB 189 (2011) provided fee authority for adult schools to charge fees for classes in ESL and citizenship, the caveat was that it was a time-limited authority that expired as of July 2015.  Going forward, there is no longer the authority for adult schools to charge fees for these classes.  While CCAE and CAEAA attempted to have bill language introduced that would have reinstated the fee authority until such time as the broader fee policy is established for adult education, there was unfortunately no willingness to entertain the extension of the fee authority.   Instead, we will need to work with our consortia to access the funds over and above the maintenance of capacity funding to help fill the gap.  

                        It should also be noted that AB 189 never provided authority for adult schools to charge fees for basic skills and adult secondary classes and that still remains true today.

FAQ #7:            What does the 5% administrative cap entail, allow and/or prohibit?

Recall AB 104 included language as follows:

Education Code Section 84913

                                    (b)  A consortium may use no more than 5 percent of funds allocated in a given fiscal year for the sum of the following:

     (1)  The costs of administration of these programs.

     (2)  The costs of the consortium.

While we supported an administrative cap being placed on consortia related activities, we were concerned with the lack of clarity regarding this language in that it would seemingly place the same cap on costs associated with adult schools delivering programs.  A strict interpretation of the cap would unquestionably devastate most adult schools and hinder the ability to deliver programs that ensure the best outcomes.  Based on conversations with legislative staff and the intent of the Department of Finance, they seem to be comfortable with the general approach CDE and the Chancellor's office are proposing that would not include the following items under the cap:

-       Salaries and benefits (for all staff and a consortium facilitator/staff person)  

-       Maintenance and custodial supplies    

-       Instructional Support including materials, supplies, technology and equipment    

-       Services including contracts, professional development, marketing and outreach, internships and externships

Legislative staff suggests moving forward with the understanding that these items are outside the cap and would be allowable.  Should there be a need to adjust the language or provide further clarity the Legislature is open to doing so in future legislative and/or budget activities.

If you have questions or concerns regarding this content, please contact CCAE via membership    at   ccaestate.org or CAEAA via bharper    at   cuhsd.org.  Thank you!

 

  

 

adult history Update from CCAE Legislative Analyst Dawn Koepke: Moving Forward - Fee Authority, Administrative Cap, Concurrent Students & SB 786 (Allen) - japraklupo

September 2015 - Hallo sahabat fashion, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul September 2015, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan Artikel Budget, Artikel CCAE, Artikel fees, Artikel Regional Consortia, yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.

Judul : adult history Update from CCAE Legislative Analyst Dawn Koepke: Moving Forward - Fee Authority, Administrative Cap, Concurrent Students & SB 786 (Allen) - japraklupo
link : adult history Update from CCAE Legislative Analyst Dawn Koepke: Moving Forward - Fee Authority, Administrative Cap, Concurrent Students & SB 786 (Allen) - japraklupo

September 2015

Dawn Koepke
Legislative Analyst
California Council of
Adult Education

A legislative update from Dawn Koepke, Legislative Analyst for CCAE (California Council of Adult Education):

Moving Forward - Fee Authority, Administrative Cap, Concurrent Students & SB 786 (Allen)

As we move forward in a post-AB 104 adult education era, we will undoubtedly become aware of components that need to be adjusted and/or reworked.  Some of the initial items we identified mid-summer needing legislative engagement included reinstating fee authority for ESL and citizenship programs and clarifying the interpretation of the 5% administrative cap.

Click on the "read more" link to learn more.

As you may recall, AB 189 passed in 2011 provided fee authority for adult schools to charge fees for classes in ESL and citizenship.  The caveat was that it was a time-limited authority that expired as of July 2015.  Going forward, there is no longer the authority for adult schools to charge fees for these classes.  I've heard from many of you that this is incredibly problematic and is in direct conflict with the overarching intent and priority in this year's budget to maintain capacity in the adult school system. 

In an effort to address the concern, CCAE and CAEAA attempted to have bill language introduced that would have reinstated the fee authority until such time as the broader fee policy is established for adult education.  Unfortunately, there was no willingness to entertain the extension of the fee authority.   Instead, we were told that we needed to work with our consortia to access the funds over and above the maintenance of capacity funding to help fill the gap.  

This is certainly not the outcome we had hoped would come to fruition.  Given this, however, it is important for adult schools to be mindful that there is no fix on the horizon.  The caveat is that CDE and the Chancellor's office are required to develop recommendations for a statewide fee policy for adult education.  We will be engaging in the development of the policy to see what opportunity there might be to address this issue.  Obviously, that process will not be a quick process nor will it result in reinstatement of the fee authority this school year. 

Whether or not anything comes of the statewide fee policy discussion, it will be important for adult schools to keep information and data going forward on the number of students going unserved because of the gap in funds, the numbers on waiting lists around the state for these (and other) classes, and limitations faced.  If nothing else, this information will provide the basis for fighting for greater resources and an increase in the adult education block grant in the coming budget years. 

Regarding the issue of clarity on the 5% administrative cap, recall AB 104 included language as follows:

Education Code Section 84913

(b)  A consortium may use no more than 5 percent of funds allocated in a given fiscal year for the sum of the following:

     (1)  The costs of administration of these programs.

     (2)  The costs of the consortium.

While we supported an administrative cap being placed on consortia related activities, we were concerned with the lack of clarity regarding this language in that it would seemingly place the same cap on costs associated with adult schools delivering programs.  A strict interpretation of the cap would unquestionably devastate most adult schools and hinder the ability to deliver programs that ensure the best outcomes.  What would such an administrative cap include?  What was the intent of the Department of Finance and Legislature in including such a provision?  We went to work to better understand the intent and overall parameters for such a cap.  Based on conversations with legislative staff, they seem to be comfortable with the general approach CDE and the Chancellor's office are proposing that would not include the following items under the cap:

-         Salaries and benefits (for all staff and a consortium facilitator/staff person)

-         Maintenance and custodial supplies

-         Instructional Support including materials, supplies, technology and equipment

-         Services including contracts, professional development, marketing and outreach, internships and externships

Legislative staff suggests moving forward with the understanding that these items are outside the cap and would be allowable.  Should there be a need to adjust the language or provide further clarity the Legislature is open to doing so in future legislative and/or budget activities.

On the subject of concurrent credit recovery for students, let's be clear - adult schools can absolutely continue to offer credit recovery for students under 18.  The caveat - they may not be served with Adult Education Block Grant funds.  We know many adult schools have provided great value to their districts by providing credit recovery opportunities for high school students under 18 years of age.  They can continue to do so, but must do so with other resources such those from LCFF.  The statute clearly provides that resources from the adult education block grant must go to serve adults - individuals 18 years of age and over.  With regard to the validity of such credits, it is our understanding that such a determination is an individual school district issue.  To the extent that a local school district accepts the credits obtained through an adult school credit recovery program funded with LCFF dollars for the purpose of a high school diploma, then the diploma should be accepted by other programs as well.

Finally, there has been much interest in SB 786 (Allen) related to the adult education block grant and joint powers authorities.  The bill would have allowed joint powers authorities to access the adult education block grant if 40% of their career technical education (CTE) enrollment was made up of adults.  The bill was held in Appropriations and as such the bill will no longer move forward.  The bill came about to help address concerns raised by SoCal ROC.  With the change in funding for ROCP programs being folded into the LCFF and funding for adults being pushed through the block grant, SoCal ROC was purportedly concerned about sustaining their programs without a direct source of funding.  Their Senator, Senator Ben Allen, introduced the language to address his constituents' concerns.  While the policy committees were amenable to pushing the bill forward, we're told the Department of Finance has been opposed to the bill and overall approach for some time.

While many CCAE and CAEAA members were amenable to the bill moving forward as it was seemingly structured to apply to just SoCal ROC, a number of members voiced concerns with what impact adding joint powers authorities to the mix of who is permitted to receive funds from the block grant would do to funding and planning activities that have already taken place - much less with such a limited pot of funds that are already spread too thin.  The bill was ultimately held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

In terms of continuing to move forward, as you continue to work within your consortium and implement the changes per the adult education block grant please keep CCAE and CAEAA informed about issues you are facing so that we might have a better understanding about items that need to be addressed in legislation or budget bill language in the coming legislative sessions.

CAHSEE Update

Over the last month, we've received a number of inquiries regarding the details surrounding the suspension of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) as a condition of receiving a high school diploma.  As you know, the CAHSEE was intended to be aligned to the content standards for English language arts and mathematics that were adopted pursuant to the 1999 education reform package of bills. In 2010 the State Board of Education (SBE) voted to adopt the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which led to the development of new statewide assessments intended to be aligned to the new standards.  However, concerns have grown over the fact that the CAHSEE is still aligned to the old standards. 

The last administration of the CAHSEE was in May 2015, but the state contract has expired.  The state opted not to renew the contract as a result of the introduction of SB 172 (Liu) this year that proposed to cancel the test while an advisory committee looks at future alternatives.  Given the expiration of the contract, the test was no longer available to the Class of 2015 thereby prompting the gut and amend of SB 725 (Hancock) late this summer that removed the CAHSEE as a requirement for high school graduation for the 2015 year only on an urgency basis. 

In late August, Governor Brown signed SB 725 (Hancock) while SB 172 (Liu) continued to move through the process. 

More specifically, SB 172 suspends the requirement to pass CAHSEE as a condition of receiving a high school diploma from the 2003-04 school year through the 2017-18 school year, inclusive.  Further, it also requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene an advisory panel to provide recommendations on the continuation of the CAHSEE and on alternative pathways to satisfy the high school graduation requirements. Under this provision, the Superintendent is required to provide these recommendations to the State Board of Education by March 2016 as part of the expansion of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). The bill requires school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to grant diplomas to all students who have met all graduation requirements other than passing the exit exam through July 31, 2018.

More specifically, under SB 172 Education Code 60851.5. provides the following:

Notwithstanding Section 60851, the administration of the high school exit examination, and the requirement that each pupil completing grade 12 successfully pass the high school exit examination as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation or a condition of graduation from high school, shall be suspended for the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years.

Additionally, SB 172 in Education Code Section 60851.6. (a) provides the following:

Notwithstanding Section 60851 or any other law, the governing board or body of a local educational agency, and the department on behalf of state special schools, shall grant a diploma of graduation from high school to any pupil who completed grade 12 in the 2003-04 school year or a subsequent school year and has met all applicable graduation requirements other than the passage of the high school exit examination.

Moving forward, it is important for adult schools work with their school districts to ensure that adult school students who are close to full credits for high school graduation/equivalency are defined as "12th grade" within their district policies.

The bill passed by houses of the Legislature this week and is now headed to the Governor's desk.  More to come...

Dawn Koepke
Legislative Analyst
California Council of
Adult Education

A legislative update from Dawn Koepke, Legislative Analyst for CCAE (California Council of Adult Education):

Moving Forward - Fee Authority, Administrative Cap, Concurrent Students & SB 786 (Allen)

As we move forward in a post-AB 104 adult education era, we will undoubtedly become aware of components that need to be adjusted and/or reworked.  Some of the initial items we identified mid-summer needing legislative engagement included reinstating fee authority for ESL and citizenship programs and clarifying the interpretation of the 5% administrative cap.

Click on the "read more" link to learn more.

As you may recall, AB 189 passed in 2011 provided fee authority for adult schools to charge fees for classes in ESL and citizenship.  The caveat was that it was a time-limited authority that expired as of July 2015.  Going forward, there is no longer the authority for adult schools to charge fees for these classes.  I've heard from many of you that this is incredibly problematic and is in direct conflict with the overarching intent and priority in this year's budget to maintain capacity in the adult school system. 

In an effort to address the concern, CCAE and CAEAA attempted to have bill language introduced that would have reinstated the fee authority until such time as the broader fee policy is established for adult education.  Unfortunately, there was no willingness to entertain the extension of the fee authority.   Instead, we were told that we needed to work with our consortia to access the funds over and above the maintenance of capacity funding to help fill the gap.  

This is certainly not the outcome we had hoped would come to fruition.  Given this, however, it is important for adult schools to be mindful that there is no fix on the horizon.  The caveat is that CDE and the Chancellor's office are required to develop recommendations for a statewide fee policy for adult education.  We will be engaging in the development of the policy to see what opportunity there might be to address this issue.  Obviously, that process will not be a quick process nor will it result in reinstatement of the fee authority this school year. 

Whether or not anything comes of the statewide fee policy discussion, it will be important for adult schools to keep information and data going forward on the number of students going unserved because of the gap in funds, the numbers on waiting lists around the state for these (and other) classes, and limitations faced.  If nothing else, this information will provide the basis for fighting for greater resources and an increase in the adult education block grant in the coming budget years. 

Regarding the issue of clarity on the 5% administrative cap, recall AB 104 included language as follows:

Education Code Section 84913

(b)  A consortium may use no more than 5 percent of funds allocated in a given fiscal year for the sum of the following:

     (1)  The costs of administration of these programs.

     (2)  The costs of the consortium.

While we supported an administrative cap being placed on consortia related activities, we were concerned with the lack of clarity regarding this language in that it would seemingly place the same cap on costs associated with adult schools delivering programs.  A strict interpretation of the cap would unquestionably devastate most adult schools and hinder the ability to deliver programs that ensure the best outcomes.  What would such an administrative cap include?  What was the intent of the Department of Finance and Legislature in including such a provision?  We went to work to better understand the intent and overall parameters for such a cap.  Based on conversations with legislative staff, they seem to be comfortable with the general approach CDE and the Chancellor's office are proposing that would not include the following items under the cap:

-         Salaries and benefits (for all staff and a consortium facilitator/staff person)

-         Maintenance and custodial supplies

-         Instructional Support including materials, supplies, technology and equipment

-         Services including contracts, professional development, marketing and outreach, internships and externships

Legislative staff suggests moving forward with the understanding that these items are outside the cap and would be allowable.  Should there be a need to adjust the language or provide further clarity the Legislature is open to doing so in future legislative and/or budget activities.

On the subject of concurrent credit recovery for students, let's be clear - adult schools can absolutely continue to offer credit recovery for students under 18.  The caveat - they may not be served with Adult Education Block Grant funds.  We know many adult schools have provided great value to their districts by providing credit recovery opportunities for high school students under 18 years of age.  They can continue to do so, but must do so with other resources such those from LCFF.  The statute clearly provides that resources from the adult education block grant must go to serve adults - individuals 18 years of age and over.  With regard to the validity of such credits, it is our understanding that such a determination is an individual school district issue.  To the extent that a local school district accepts the credits obtained through an adult school credit recovery program funded with LCFF dollars for the purpose of a high school diploma, then the diploma should be accepted by other programs as well.

Finally, there has been much interest in SB 786 (Allen) related to the adult education block grant and joint powers authorities.  The bill would have allowed joint powers authorities to access the adult education block grant if 40% of their career technical education (CTE) enrollment was made up of adults.  The bill was held in Appropriations and as such the bill will no longer move forward.  The bill came about to help address concerns raised by SoCal ROC.  With the change in funding for ROCP programs being folded into the LCFF and funding for adults being pushed through the block grant, SoCal ROC was purportedly concerned about sustaining their programs without a direct source of funding.  Their Senator, Senator Ben Allen, introduced the language to address his constituents' concerns.  While the policy committees were amenable to pushing the bill forward, we're told the Department of Finance has been opposed to the bill and overall approach for some time.

While many CCAE and CAEAA members were amenable to the bill moving forward as it was seemingly structured to apply to just SoCal ROC, a number of members voiced concerns with what impact adding joint powers authorities to the mix of who is permitted to receive funds from the block grant would do to funding and planning activities that have already taken place - much less with such a limited pot of funds that are already spread too thin.  The bill was ultimately held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

In terms of continuing to move forward, as you continue to work within your consortium and implement the changes per the adult education block grant please keep CCAE and CAEAA informed about issues you are facing so that we might have a better understanding about items that need to be addressed in legislation or budget bill language in the coming legislative sessions.

CAHSEE Update

Over the last month, we've received a number of inquiries regarding the details surrounding the suspension of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) as a condition of receiving a high school diploma.  As you know, the CAHSEE was intended to be aligned to the content standards for English language arts and mathematics that were adopted pursuant to the 1999 education reform package of bills. In 2010 the State Board of Education (SBE) voted to adopt the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which led to the development of new statewide assessments intended to be aligned to the new standards.  However, concerns have grown over the fact that the CAHSEE is still aligned to the old standards. 

The last administration of the CAHSEE was in May 2015, but the state contract has expired.  The state opted not to renew the contract as a result of the introduction of SB 172 (Liu) this year that proposed to cancel the test while an advisory committee looks at future alternatives.  Given the expiration of the contract, the test was no longer available to the Class of 2015 thereby prompting the gut and amend of SB 725 (Hancock) late this summer that removed the CAHSEE as a requirement for high school graduation for the 2015 year only on an urgency basis. 

In late August, Governor Brown signed SB 725 (Hancock) while SB 172 (Liu) continued to move through the process. 

More specifically, SB 172 suspends the requirement to pass CAHSEE as a condition of receiving a high school diploma from the 2003-04 school year through the 2017-18 school year, inclusive.  Further, it also requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene an advisory panel to provide recommendations on the continuation of the CAHSEE and on alternative pathways to satisfy the high school graduation requirements. Under this provision, the Superintendent is required to provide these recommendations to the State Board of Education by March 2016 as part of the expansion of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). The bill requires school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to grant diplomas to all students who have met all graduation requirements other than passing the exit exam through July 31, 2018.

More specifically, under SB 172 Education Code 60851.5. provides the following:

Notwithstanding Section 60851, the administration of the high school exit examination, and the requirement that each pupil completing grade 12 successfully pass the high school exit examination as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation or a condition of graduation from high school, shall be suspended for the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years.

Additionally, SB 172 in Education Code Section 60851.6. (a) provides the following:

Notwithstanding Section 60851 or any other law, the governing board or body of a local educational agency, and the department on behalf of state special schools, shall grant a diploma of graduation from high school to any pupil who completed grade 12 in the 2003-04 school year or a subsequent school year and has met all applicable graduation requirements other than the passage of the high school exit examination.

Moving forward, it is important for adult schools work with their school districts to ensure that adult school students who are close to full credits for high school graduation/equivalency are defined as "12th grade" within their district policies.

The bill passed by houses of the Legislature this week and is now headed to the Governor's desk.  More to come...

adult history What Happened At Acalanes? - japraklupo

September 2015 - Hallo sahabat fashion, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul September 2015, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan Artikel Cuts and closures, Artikel How Things Work, Artikel Older Adults, Artikel Perspective, Artikel Think About It, yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.

Judul : adult history What Happened At Acalanes? - japraklupo
link : adult history What Happened At Acalanes? - japraklupo

September 2015

What happens when funding is threatened, reduced, removed, and destabilized for programs paid by the public and designed to serve it? Click on the "read more" link to find out. That's what we can learn from what happened to Adult Schools and Adult Education these last six years, and stretching back further than that, from the last one hundred and fifty. Acalanes, as did so many Adult Schools since funding was flexed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2009, went through tremendous turmoil and at one point, was slated for closure.   The LaMorinda Weekly story, "Adult Students Wanted at Del Valle," provided in full below, tells one version of the story. George Porter, in his Perspective piece on Acalanes' Older Adult Program, tells another. Putting those two pieces together, the question comes to mind, "Which adults are wanted at Del Valle - and why?" Adult Schools and Adult Education have gone through many changes in the past 150 years, as we can learn from Kristen Pursley's two powerpoints: *  A History of Adult Education in California:  We've Been Here Before * The Battle for Adult Education in California: Historical Context Each time funding was destabilized, this paid for by the public institution of education for the public has changed.  Why?  To what end?  The answers to those questions tell the real story, however it's described in the news. LaMorinda Weekly Adult Students Wanted at Del Valle by Cathy Tyson September 9th, 2015      Despite funding concerns this past spring, Acalanes Adult Education at the Del Valle campus near Rossmoor is open and administrators want to encourage enrollment to help keep the program healthy; fall classes are starting soon. Since the adoption of Assembly Bill 86, a bill to redesign the statewide adult education system to speed up academic  and career success, funding for adult education has changed dramatically. Now revenue comes in the form of block grants  that are distributed to regional educational consortia to develop joint plans for serving basic adult education students. The goal is to focus on adult students who have low levels of literacy, need to learn English as a second language, and high school dropouts who want to earn a diploma, along with career education to help transition those students to post-secondary education and the labor market. While the overhaul is not a bad thing, it clearly leaves  behind adults who simply want to be lifelong learners and pursue education for the joy of it and for some mental exercise. "Bottom line, we want to meet the needs of our student population," said new director of the Del Valle Education Center, Steven France. Unfortunately without support from the state going forward, classes are now entirely paid for by student fees - which translates to a roughly 25 percent increase in the cost of each class. France says that works out to about $7 more per class hour - less than the cost of a movie. The school continues to offer a range of fall classes, everything from art to language to money management. Administrators are encouraging students to sign up, because unlike in past years, a minimum of 15 students are required to enroll in each class in order for the program to be sustainable. Less than that threshold means either the hours of instruction will decrease, cost per student will  increase, or the class will be canceled. Robust class enrollment will allow the program to grow and expand class offerings.  New Del Valle Education Center director Steve France and office staff, Jenny Knapp, Lissa Heptig and Carolyn Madderra     Photo C. Tyson This past spring, the future of the program was in doubt.  A number of full-time staffers have been laid off, including former director Frank Acojido, in response to the sea change  in state funding. France didn't have to go far to fill the position; he was the former director of the Acalanes Center for Independent Study, which is also on the Del Valle campus.           In order to fund its popular adult enrichment classes, administrators at Del Valle had to take a hard look at what it really costs to run its programs. Students were surveyed to see if they would support a 25 percent increase in class fees to cover overhead, insurance, utility costs and more, which they did. Seniors get a 10 percent discount, and the  costs are still fairly reasonable. For example the one-evening-only class, "Savvy Social Security Planning for Couples," is $25, and 10 "Italian 1A" classes cost $130, or $117 for seniors. It's anticipated that pricing classes to represent the actual cost of delivering the service should be a sustainable model going forward, barring any big surprises. There is also a push to look at additional options to help utilize the recently renovated campus, which is only open during the day and just two evenings per week as a way to maximize usage and cut back on expenses. There continues to be strong community support as well as support from the Acalanes Union High School District to keep the facility open. The vast majority of students at this facility live nearby,  in Rossmoor or in Lamorinda, and are interested in enrichment classes. The best way to show support is to sign up for a class or two and learn something new, France says. Registration for these and many other classes is available online at www.acalanes.k12.ca.us/adulted or by phone or in person at the Acalanes Adult Education office at 1963 Tice Valley Blvd. in Walnut Creek. Some classes  start the week of Sept. 14, others later this fall; check the class schedule for all the details.

What happens when funding is threatened, reduced, removed, and destabilized for programs paid by the public and designed to serve it? Click on the "read more" link to find out. That's what we can learn from what happened to Adult Schools and Adult Education these last six years, and stretching back further than that, from the last one hundred and fifty. Acalanes, as did so many Adult Schools since funding was flexed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2009, went through tremendous turmoil and at one point, was slated for closure.   The LaMorinda Weekly story, "Adult Students Wanted at Del Valle," provided in full below, tells one version of the story. George Porter, in his Perspective piece on Acalanes' Older Adult Program, tells another. Putting those two pieces together, the question comes to mind, "Which adults are wanted at Del Valle - and why?" Adult Schools and Adult Education have gone through many changes in the past 150 years, as we can learn from Kristen Pursley's two powerpoints: *  A History of Adult Education in California:  We've Been Here Before * The Battle for Adult Education in California: Historical Context Each time funding was destabilized, this paid for by the public institution of education for the public has changed.  Why?  To what end?  The answers to those questions tell the real story, however it's described in the news. LaMorinda Weekly Adult Students Wanted at Del Valle by Cathy Tyson September 9th, 2015      Despite funding concerns this past spring, Acalanes Adult Education at the Del Valle campus near Rossmoor is open and administrators want to encourage enrollment to help keep the program healthy; fall classes are starting soon. Since the adoption of Assembly Bill 86, a bill to redesign the statewide adult education system to speed up academic  and career success, funding for adult education has changed dramatically. Now revenue comes in the form of block grants  that are distributed to regional educational consortia to develop joint plans for serving basic adult education students. The goal is to focus on adult students who have low levels of literacy, need to learn English as a second language, and high school dropouts who want to earn a diploma, along with career education to help transition those students to post-secondary education and the labor market. While the overhaul is not a bad thing, it clearly leaves  behind adults who simply want to be lifelong learners and pursue education for the joy of it and for some mental exercise. "Bottom line, we want to meet the needs of our student population," said new director of the Del Valle Education Center, Steven France. Unfortunately without support from the state going forward, classes are now entirely paid for by student fees - which translates to a roughly 25 percent increase in the cost of each class. France says that works out to about $7 more per class hour - less than the cost of a movie. The school continues to offer a range of fall classes, everything from art to language to money management. Administrators are encouraging students to sign up, because unlike in past years, a minimum of 15 students are required to enroll in each class in order for the program to be sustainable. Less than that threshold means either the hours of instruction will decrease, cost per student will  increase, or the class will be canceled. Robust class enrollment will allow the program to grow and expand class offerings.  New Del Valle Education Center director Steve France and office staff, Jenny Knapp, Lissa Heptig and Carolyn Madderra     Photo C. Tyson This past spring, the future of the program was in doubt.  A number of full-time staffers have been laid off, including former director Frank Acojido, in response to the sea change  in state funding. France didn't have to go far to fill the position; he was the former director of the Acalanes Center for Independent Study, which is also on the Del Valle campus.           In order to fund its popular adult enrichment classes, administrators at Del Valle had to take a hard look at what it really costs to run its programs. Students were surveyed to see if they would support a 25 percent increase in class fees to cover overhead, insurance, utility costs and more, which they did. Seniors get a 10 percent discount, and the  costs are still fairly reasonable. For example the one-evening-only class, "Savvy Social Security Planning for Couples," is $25, and 10 "Italian 1A" classes cost $130, or $117 for seniors. It's anticipated that pricing classes to represent the actual cost of delivering the service should be a sustainable model going forward, barring any big surprises. There is also a push to look at additional options to help utilize the recently renovated campus, which is only open during the day and just two evenings per week as a way to maximize usage and cut back on expenses. There continues to be strong community support as well as support from the Acalanes Union High School District to keep the facility open. The vast majority of students at this facility live nearby,  in Rossmoor or in Lamorinda, and are interested in enrichment classes. The best way to show support is to sign up for a class or two and learn something new, France says. Registration for these and many other classes is available online at www.acalanes.k12.ca.us/adulted or by phone or in person at the Acalanes Adult Education office at 1963 Tice Valley Blvd. in Walnut Creek. Some classes  start the week of Sept. 14, others later this fall; check the class schedule for all the details.

adult history Montebello Community Adult Ed Advocates August Newsletter - japraklupo

September 2015 - Hallo sahabat fashion, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul September 2015, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan Artikel Budget, Artikel fees, Artikel Montebello Adult Ed Advocates, yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.

Judul : adult history Montebello Community Adult Ed Advocates August Newsletter - japraklupo
link : adult history Montebello Community Adult Ed Advocates August Newsletter - japraklupo

September 2015

From the Adult Education Advocates in the Montebello Community


California
Adult Education______________________________________________
                                                A Newsletter on Adult Education in California August 2015


FEES IN ADULT EDUCATION NEED LEGISLATION THIS 2015 SESSION

Legislation on fees in adult education is needed before the Legislature adjourns in September.  At a minimum, the provisions of AB 189 (Eng, 2011) need to be extended since they sunset on June 30th. AB 189 allowed fees in ESL/Citizenship classes, and supported districts as they sought to continue these course offerings.

Click on the "read more" link to learn more.


The fee legislation is needed because AB 104 (2015 budgt trailer bill that contains the Adult Eduation Block Grant) is silent on fees, and presently some district adult education programs are being legally advised against their use.  Fees are especially critical to providing extra support to programs that help adults prepare for the workforce, both in acquiring language/academic and job skills.

A broader approach to fees would be welcomed or even preferred.  SB 178 (Liu, 2014) specifically requested recommendations on fees in adult education, and these were to be submitted to the respective state agencies on March 1, 2015 as a part of the report-back on AB 86 consortia planning.  To date these recommendations have yet to be submitted.

THE URGENCY OF THE NEW ADULT EDUCATION BLOCK GRANT

Time is of the Essence:  This description is applicable to the work required to implement the AB 104 Adult Education Block Grant.   Starting now and continuing over the new few months, at least the following needs to be done:

* Consortium Membership:  Formal membership needs to be established with recognition by governing boards of school and community college districts.

* Decision-Making provisions:  Each consortium needs to establish the basis for decision-making, especially in regards to decisions involving funding.

* Public Notice Requirements:  A public notice needs to be established that is like the Brown Act, which is used by public entities throughout the state.

* Conflict of Interest Adherence:  Consortia will spend significant amounts of public fund, and procedures will be needed to avoid problems with mismanagement.

* 2015-16 Priorities for Implementation:  Each consortium will be evaluated at the end of the year to assess its success in meeting its priorities and target objectives.   Now each consortium needs to decide what it will accomplish in 2015-16 and how it will be measured to assess its success.

WHAT TO DO...

Contact your local legislators and let them know about the need to enact legislation on fees in adult education.  Also let them know about your implementation of AB104.  Most of all, thank members for supporting adult education.

Developed by Adult Education Advocates in the Montebello Community.

From the Adult Education Advocates in the Montebello Community


California
Adult Education______________________________________________
                                                A Newsletter on Adult Education in California August 2015


FEES IN ADULT EDUCATION NEED LEGISLATION THIS 2015 SESSION

Legislation on fees in adult education is needed before the Legislature adjourns in September.  At a minimum, the provisions of AB 189 (Eng, 2011) need to be extended since they sunset on June 30th. AB 189 allowed fees in ESL/Citizenship classes, and supported districts as they sought to continue these course offerings.

Click on the "read more" link to learn more.


The fee legislation is needed because AB 104 (2015 budgt trailer bill that contains the Adult Eduation Block Grant) is silent on fees, and presently some district adult education programs are being legally advised against their use.  Fees are especially critical to providing extra support to programs that help adults prepare for the workforce, both in acquiring language/academic and job skills.

A broader approach to fees would be welcomed or even preferred.  SB 178 (Liu, 2014) specifically requested recommendations on fees in adult education, and these were to be submitted to the respective state agencies on March 1, 2015 as a part of the report-back on AB 86 consortia planning.  To date these recommendations have yet to be submitted.

THE URGENCY OF THE NEW ADULT EDUCATION BLOCK GRANT

Time is of the Essence:  This description is applicable to the work required to implement the AB 104 Adult Education Block Grant.   Starting now and continuing over the new few months, at least the following needs to be done:

* Consortium Membership:  Formal membership needs to be established with recognition by governing boards of school and community college districts.

* Decision-Making provisions:  Each consortium needs to establish the basis for decision-making, especially in regards to decisions involving funding.

* Public Notice Requirements:  A public notice needs to be established that is like the Brown Act, which is used by public entities throughout the state.

* Conflict of Interest Adherence:  Consortia will spend significant amounts of public fund, and procedures will be needed to avoid problems with mismanagement.

* 2015-16 Priorities for Implementation:  Each consortium will be evaluated at the end of the year to assess its success in meeting its priorities and target objectives.   Now each consortium needs to decide what it will accomplish in 2015-16 and how it will be measured to assess its success.

WHAT TO DO...

Contact your local legislators and let them know about the need to enact legislation on fees in adult education.  Also let them know about your implementation of AB104.  Most of all, thank members for supporting adult education.

Developed by Adult Education Advocates in the Montebello Community.