Testimony Before Joint Committee on the Master Plan K-12, Working Group Report on Emerging Modes

By Sylvia Oshima, A Teacher in the Stockton Unified School District,

On Behalf of the California Teachers Association

March 18, 2002

Good day, M. Chair and members of the committee. I am Sylvia Oshima, a teacher in the Stockton Unified School District. I also served on the working group that produced the emerging modes report. 

I am here representing the California Teachers Association and more than 319,000 of my colleagues.

I appreciate the opportunity presented by serving on the working group. It was a group characterized by a lot of hard work. I also wish to acknowledge the hard work and the efforts our consultant, Jennifer Mitchell. She really worked with us to assemble the committee’s ideas.

The report is a good effort. We do, however, have concerns about specific recommendations, and I will detail them in a moment.

Before I do, I’d like to share something with you about my students that will help you understand why I stand here today urging more equity for them and more access for students like them to our adult education system.

Even though I have worked as a teacher for Stockton Unified's School for Adults for the past 20 years, I am based off-site. For the past four years, I have taught students in the community integration program for the United Cerebral Palsy Association of San Joaquin County. 

I currently have 26 students with different disabilities who are at different academic levels. All but five students are in manual or electric wheelchairs. Out of the five who are ambulatory, two use walkers to get around. Two of my students are deaf and use sign language to communicate. Five use communication devices or books. Nineteen are verbal. Eight are high school graduates. One student has an Associate of Arts degree. Ten work on the People First newsletter, which is published 5-6 times a year. Two have part-time jobs, one as a ticket taker at the local theater, the other as a janitor for an auto supply shop. 

I teach my students the skills that they would need to function at home, at school or in the community. Such skills include being able to read basic survival signs, how to tell time, how to count money, how to read a calendar or a schedule, how to make/keep or cancel an appointment, how to read/follow recipes, and how to catch a city bus to a chosen destination. 

From CTA’s perspective and my own, the state has far to go in order to ensure equity and access to our educational system for many adult Californians who have a desperate need for educational support. Many of these Californians – including those who have only limited knowledge of English and are as a result trapped in subsistence level employment – look to our adult education system as the only way out of their trapped circumstances. But the funding system for adult education would suggest that these Californians are marginalized or forgotten…or at the very least discounted. Funding for adults in this system on a per-student basis is only one-third, roughly 33%, of the funding provided for students in our K-12 school system. 

This inequity –both to students and employees in the adult education system – cries out for redress. Until funding for adult education has been boosted to a level comparable with K-12 per-student funding, the other recommendations contained in this report will have little meaning.

The report asserts that the state has a need for better data collection, and there are elements of this assertion that may be true. But until and unless funding for adult education is boosted, any consideration of funding for data collection and other information gathering is misguided. First and foremost, our education system must provide the access and support these adult students need. Only then should we concern ourselves with the creation of more data collection systems.

The state has set up world-class standards for our K-12 students and has examined what elements are required for our school system to be even adequately funded. 

Let me state clearly for the record: Californians also deserve world-class adult education, and that will require a commitment to providing world-class funding.

We do have some concerns about some of the work group’s specific recommendations, and I would like to focus the rest of my written remarks on them, because our time is short.

We have concerns with Section I, Recommendation 6: the state should take the lead in developing educational technology partnerships that include the public, private, non-profit, and for-profit sectors.

Our concerns center on the use of for-profit partners. We are concerned that the profit motive can come at the expense of our crucial mission: educating our students. Their education should never be undercut by concerns about profit.

We also have concerns with Section I, Recommendation 7: the state should encourage local education agencies to establish partnerships with utilities, telecommunication companies, software ad hardware providers, and others to facilitate the functional universal access to technology.

CTA continues to underscore that meaningful participation by faculty and students must be part of the design and development of any such partnerships.

Section I, Recommendation 8 urges that the state should encourage cross-segmental collaboration and dialogue among teachers at the same levels to improve instructional delivery.

To make this recommendation work, the state must provide additional resources.

Relative to Section II, Recommendation 1, the state and local education agencies should offer incentives to teachers who put learning within the community or environmental context of their students. This recommendation has the effect of elevating one teaching style over another. There simply was not enough facts or discussion to warrant this conclusion and recommendation.

Relative to Section III, Recommendation 3: the state should set aside a pool of funds to encourage the creation of small schools in K-12 education. We cannot support this recommendation now, particularly given the state’s tight fiscal condition. We believe existing revenues should first go to fully support existing education programs, and we believe the first call on additional resources should be for our schools of greatest need, those scoring in the lowest deciles on the state’s Academic Performance Index (API). Providing additional funding to these schools have been one of CTA’s highest legislative priorities.

In terms of Section III, Recommendation 4: the state should encourage the creation, by 2005, of a digital learning portfolio for each learner that would allow the student to move through a variety of coordinated delivery systems, regardless of the provider.

We believe that student confidentiality must be assured and protected.

Relative to Section IV, Recommendation 1: the state should identify an entity to develop a common set of requirements for certificates to be developed by a consortium of partners, including education institutions, employers, and community-based organizations.

Upon reflection, there is no demonstrated need for this. This has the further potential to create more unneeded bureaucracy.

Relative to Section V, Recommendations 1, 2, & 3: 

1. The State should conduct an annual forecast, through a designated entity, of education trends and needs, including elements critical to state policy-making and resource allocation.

2. The State should develop all-electronic data collection processes by the year 2005 that would make minimal demands on school districts while providing sufficient information for policy decisions.

3. The State should develop unique identifiers for critical elements of the educational system when continuity and cross-correlation of information is important, particularly (1) students, (2) instructors, and (3) institutions.

CTA again notes that especially in a time of limited resources, it is not wise to create a new unneeded bureaucracy. This has the potential of becoming a "big-ticket" item that would redirect funding from instructional excellence efforts.

Any data collection needs to be overseen by a board that represents a cross-section including practicing classroom teachers. There are critical issues including confidentiality, as well as the use to which the data would be put.

The report notes in its conclusion: "The state is in desperate need of a comprehensive data collection system that would support forecasting and planning at the district and state levels. This is a systematic need that was raised by each of the seven working groups of the joint committee."

But in point of fact, the need for this system is much less pressing that a host of other needs, including boosting funding for adult education.

Relative to Section VI, Recommendation 1: The State should establish a funding base adequate to the increasing challenges facing California’s Adult Continuing Education System.

CTA strongly supports the sub-group’s recommendation to increase funding for Adult Education on a per-pupil basis to match the revenue limit of the K-12 system. It is important to recognize that for many Californians, adult education is the only means to realize the promise of the American dream. For many, adult education represents the way to master a new language, and that mastery is vital to their efforts to improve their vocational choices and their participation in our democratic system. To pursue equity and access requires us to pursue funding equity for adult education programs. At a time of growing disparities between the rich and the poor in California, adult education is the bridge across that growing chasm.

Relative to Section VI, Recommendation 6: The state should review the governance structure for adult continuing education, including the role of the Joint Board Committee on Noncredit and Adult Education, with the goal of achieving a seamless delivery system among multiple provides that ensures a smooth transition for those adult learners continuing on to formal education, pursuing other goals, or entering the workforce.

This is not necessary. However, if it is done CTA believes that no additional state revenue should be allocated to this. This should be accomplished with current funds.

Relative to Section VI, Recommendation 7: The State should develop a mechanism for the reciprocity of instructional credentials, based on minimum qualifications, between the adult education and noncredit systems to allow instructors to teach in either or both systems.

CTA has concerns about this proposal. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the quality standards of each separate level – K-12’s credentialing requirements and the community colleges educational background requirements – are kept intact. As long as these standards are maintained, there is a benefit to both systems if staff can be shared.

Let me sum up this way: we strongly support the report’s avowed commitment to providing equity and access for all Californians to a high quality education.

For adults, this commitment to equity and access must take the form of a funding increase that brings per-student appropriations to the level of per-student funding for the K-12 system.

All other proposals must by their very nature be of a lower priority until we have achieved this important step toward guaranteeing equity and access for our adult learners.

Thank you.

I’ll be more than happy to try to answer questions you may have.
 
 

Attachment to Testimony By CTA Representative Sylvia Oshima

Relevant Portions of CTA Policies on Adult Education and Community Colleges

CTA believes:

• K-12 Adult Education should be increased to meet minimum requirements for continuation and upgrading of current programs and should reflect the need for funding parity between K-12 and Community Colleges. 
• Community Colleges should receive a basic level of support for Adult Education. Additionally, Community Colleges should receive a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in keeping with the COLA received for other programs offered by the Community Colleges. 
• Both segments shall be placed on a funding formula for the purpose of reaching a common funding level for like programs. 
• The COLA for Adult Education funding will be equal to that of the individual community college or K-12 district. 
• An annual growth factor will be included for the K-14 Adult Education programs to meet the needs of the community. 
• Up to 2% of the previous year's budget will be allowed on an application basis to initiate new programs. The ADA cap should be adjusted by the above 2% for each new program. 
• Any high school, unified or community college district may assume responsibility of providing adult education only by a mutual delineation of functions agreement. If the parties are unable to agree to a mutual delineation of functions agreement, the parties will agree to abide by a final and binding decision that shall be made by a representative of the State Conciliation Services. These decisions when applicable shall be part of the collective bargaining process as defined in SB 160. In the absence of an exclusive agent in a district when the above issue surfaces, the appropriate teacher/faculty body shall be given the opportunity to meet and negotiate the impact of the decision. 
• Districts whose ADA cap is being audited and adjusted should be allowed to apply for additional ADA above the cap in order to meet the changing needs of a community. (VED: 96-03; 84-06; 82-06) 

MPDRAFTemergmodes03132ndkb.doc 3/14/2002 4:27 PM

Revisions, Ken Burt 3:25 pm