California’s Assault on University Students and Teachers

The freshly signed California budget slashes $650 million each from the budgets of its two preeminent university systems, the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU), serving hundreds of thousands of state residents. The cuts are $150 million more than originally threatened earlier this year and will result in significant tuition hikes and service cuts. The new budget is dependent on predicted increases in revenue to the state. The Bay Citizen writes that if the increased revenue fails to materialize, the universities could lose another $100 million each.

Tuition for California college students has more than tripled over the last decade. With the new cuts, fees are expected to rise another 8% at CSU and 10% at UC next fall, according to the Student Activism blog.

Not only has UC tuition been skyrocketing yearly for California residents, but the university has shifted its focus from providing affordable higher education for all qualified residents to actively recruiting out of state students who must pay an additional non-residents’ tuition of $22,000 each (according to another Bay Citizen report), bringing the university much higher profits per student. The San Francisco Chronicle says that out of state students will bring the university $80 million, up from $54 million last year. As a result, the number of California residents intending to enroll in UC Berkeley's freshman class has dropped by 21% over the past two years, the Bay Citizen reports. The school admitted nearly three times as many out-of-state students this year as it did in 2009. Throughout the nine campus system, the number of out-of-state and international students has more than doubled to 12% since 2009.

At the CSU system, the chancellor is asking the trustees to increase tuition by 12%. CSU has already cut enrollment by 10,000. Students will also find fewer professors at both university systems, making classes more crowded or dropped altogether. And it is not just students who will be suffering. Universities are making it much more difficult to achieve tenure or even to get a tenure-track position, instead offering more adjunct, temporary and part-time teaching professions which many desperate job seekers are willingly accepting. Many are shuttling back and forth between two or more campuses or even university systems in order to have enough teaching assignments to make ends meet.

Universities love “contingent” employees because they are easier to fire, are paid less, and often are not eligible for benefits. Because they are much easier to fire, “contingent” employees are less likely to speak up on their own behalf, or for their students, fearful that any rocking of the boat could spell the end of their job. And it’s not just one specific job they are trying to protect. It might seem a blessing to get laid off from a low-paid, 1-section teaching job with no security or benefits at a community college. However, that lay-off and a potentially bad reference could prevent a person from securing a better full-time position at another college when such a position opens up.

According to the SF Chronicle, the number of full professors in the CSU system dropped by 13% from 1990 to 2010, and full- and part-time lecturers rose by 10%. For each lecturer who replaces a tenured professor, the university saves an average of $31,679. However, lecturers do not always participate in faculty or department meetings and are left out of academic senate meetings and decision-making. They lack the institutional support and time to mentor students the way professors can. The lack of a stable office and time means that it much harder for students to get letters of recommendation or even help with their homework. In the UC system, the number of lecturers grew by 37% between 1998 and 2010, while the number of professors grew by only 21%.

CA Lawmakers: Kill the Poor, Disabled and Elderly So We Can Get Paid

California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed the state’s new budget, just in the nick of time so that lawmakers can finally get paid. Under the new budget, which cuts around $15 billion from social services, poor people will get less medical care and welfare, fewer services will be available for disabled people, state parks will close and students at the UC and CSU university systems will see their tuitions skyrocket.

The new budget passed because there were no new taxes, old taxes were allowed to wear out, Dems and Reps looked the other way as a bit of financial hocus pocus was scattered about, and the remaining deficit was pushed onto the backs of the state’s most vulnerable and politically marginalized residents. Specifically, the tax extensions that Gov. Brown so dearly wanted extended have been allowed to end, reducing sales tax from 8.25 to 7.25% and slashing the vehicle license fee (vlf) by 50%. The San Francisco Chronicle suggests that this will benefit the average Californian by $1,000 per year. However, for those with beaters or no cars at all, the slashing of the VLF will be negligible, whereas for those with Hummers, Caddies, Porsches and fancier vehicles, the decreased VLF will save them hundreds. Similarly, the savings from a declining sales tax will be much greater for big ticket items that the wealthy can afford, and meaningless for those who spend primarily on food and medicine. Thus, the middle class and wealthy will save some money, while the poor and working classes will save very little on the deal.

Meanwhile, the $83 per month average savings will result in havoc and death for poor people in the state. For example, under the new budget, people on Medi-Cal will be limited to only 7 doctor visits per year and, for the first time ever they will have co-pays for hospital and emergency room visits and medications, the Chronicle reports, thus dissuading them from seeking necessary or urgent care. The adult day health program, which serves 37,000 people, will be eliminated, forcing thousands into nursing homes. The In-Home Supportive Services program, which serves 436,000 seniors, disabled and blind residents, providing meals and hygiene, will also be slashed, reducing their home assistance by 16.5 hours per month, the Chronicle reports. Welfare recipients will be cut off after four years. The department that oversees services for people with developmental disabilities will lose $577 million this year, on top of $700 million two years ago. The CSU and UC systems will lose $650 million each, bringing tuition to over $12,000 per year at UC schools, and up to nearly $6,000 per year at CSUs.

Even for the cynical, selfish and greedy, these cuts are far worse than they would seem on paper. Many of the cuts to healthcare, for example, will result in the loss of federal matching funds, thus doubling their negative impact. Furthermore, billions of dollars of federal stimulus funds that boosted Medi-Cal are set to run out tomorrow. According to the Chronicle, the stimulus funds added an additional 12% to the matching funds, so that for every 50 cents California spent on Medi-Cal, the feds chipped in another 62 cents.  People without health services tend to ignore treatable and chronic conditions until they need emergency services, which results in thousands of preventable deaths and ends up costing tax payers far more in the long run.

Big Brother Is Watching What Your Kids Eat (But Doing Little About It)

There was an article today in the Bay Citizen (taken from a Reuters news report)  about a program placing surveillance cameras in San Antonio public schools to document what students choose in the cafeteria lunch line and what they throw away. My first reaction was outrage at the invasion of privacy. Then, when I considered the scientific data that could be obtained from the setup, I became intrigued. They will not only be able to document what is eaten and what is thrown away, but they will be able to connect this information with individual students and compare it with socioeconomic data. Thus, they will be able to identify any potential correlations between food choices and the socioeconomic backgrounds of students, as well as food preferences that could be used to plan healthier alternatives.

Then I got creeped out again. Why does the San Antonio school system need to spend $2 million on this experiment? (Granted, the money came from a federal grant, so it would be more accurate to ask why the feds need to spend this kind of dough). However, we already know the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods, so why not use that money to help reconfigure the food services of the district to provide healthier foods? Sure, it could be argued that the adults don’t really know what this particular population of kids really wants to eat, so maybe their healthy choices would just end up in the waste bin anyway. But that brings up several other issues. If San Antonio starts producing healthy facsimiles of the foods their students enjoy, maybe their students will stop enjoying them and will toss them, too. A baked potato chip devoid of salt and fat is hardly worth the trouble to chew. Furthermore, the “healthy” choices might end up being healthy only in name, as is often the case, remaining mass produced industrial swill.

There is also the bigger question of whether or not school meals can really mitigate all the other factors that contribute to obesity. People develop their food preferences at a young age and have those preferences reinforced at home and in their communities. What can the schools do to change eating and shopping habits at home? Poor families are still limited in terms of what they can afford to buy to eat and children will continue to eat what gives them comfort and familiarity outside of school so long as it is available or encouraged. Furthermore, overworked, stressed out families have less time and energy to cook wholesome meals at home. After a ten-hour day of being yelled at by 3 different bosses, Hack in the Sack’s promise of a no cooking, no clean-up, low cost dinner, may seem like perfection.

There are other issues, too, like the lack of funding and time provided for exercise and the further encroachment on PE classes by the demands of NCLB. If we really want to make a difference in children’s health, then we should have mandatory physical exercise daily for students, whether that comes in the form of traditional PE classes, or dance, yoga, or other alternatives.

Honduran Violence Against Striking Teachers and Students

Honduras is in the midst of a month long general strike. The strike, spearheaded by teachers and the National Front of Popular Resistance, is protesting government repression, attacks on teachers, privatization of the public education system, and the skyrocketing cost of living. However, virtually all of Honduran society is now in resistance, including the Garifuna (Afro-Indian), peasant and indigenous communities. In March, President Lobo threatened to fire striking teachers, and has since carried out the threat on 300 of them. Several striking teachers have been killed by the police, while three high school students were killed last week in Tegucigalpa. The police routinely attack protesters with clubs, tear gas, and rubber bullets.

According to Democracy Now, the violence throughout the country has been escalating, with March being one of the deadliest on record. There has been an average of 25 women murdered each week, and over 40 murders of gays and lesbians. The homicide rate is now among the highest in the world, and four times that of Mexico, even with its epidemic of drug violence. This should be no surprise since Honduras (along with much of Central American) has grown in importance to drug traffickers, not only for its importance to smuggling, but as a place for Mexican drug lords to hide out from their government.

There are several connections between drug violence and repression of teachers and the rest of Honduran civil society. First, the same police and military that are repressing Hondurans during their protests and organizing are complicit in the drug trade.  A second connection is the President himself, Porfirio Lobo, who is in power only because the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted in a U.S. supported coup. Democracy Now reported that Lobo has just been offered $200 million from the U.S. government for the police and military to use in the drug war. However, there will be no oversight to ensure that the money and weapons are actually used to fight drug trafficking and not against civilians.

Shutting Parents Out to Shut Them Up

(Image by t0msk)

What is the best way to get your way? Make sure that your way is the only way being discussed. Charter schools achieve this by cutting parents out of their governing boards and operating in secret. Republicans are attempting to achieve this by crushing unions and destroying their ability to fund Democratic candidates. The ruling elite achieve this by influencing members of both parties, controlling the media and by framing every issue in terms of whether it is good for “jobs” and the “economy” (i.e., profits).

There are plenty of stakeholders who oppose corporate education reform and who are shut out of the debate, the most obvious (and vocal) being teachers. However, there is another vocal group that is also left out of some of the most important education reform decisions: parents. Leonie Haimson (from Class Size Matters) & Julie Woestehoff (from Parents United for Responsible Education) have outlined many of the consequences of this in their commentary, SHUTTING OUT PARENTS: Obama's Disappointing Blueprint for Reform.

Excerpts are below (in quotes), with my comments in italics:

“As public school parents and parent advocates, we have grave reservations about the Obama administration’s "blueprint for reform" laying out its proposals for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Along with 16 other parent activists from throughout the country, we recently wrote a letter to the president and Congress, which hundreds more signed on to, registering our opposition to the administration’s agenda for the nation’s schools.

As this letter from “parents across America” pointed out, the parent voice has been missing so far from the national debate on education, and is entirely absent from the top-down, often draconian policies put forward by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.”

While the Duncan plan is certainly top-down and detrimental to students, the lack of parent voice in the debate is not an innocent oversight. The parent voice has been deliberately shut out because it is a nuisance and a hindrance to corporate profits, the ultimate goal of the Obama/Duncan education reform model. In much the same way that the U.S. cannot tolerate any sort of popular government in Egypt because it might make decisions that limit U.S. corporations’ ability to exploit their workers and resources, the current wave of education reform is all about plundering the public education system for private gain. Low wages, weakened unions and job protections, heavy reliance on testing and accountability, and the use of educational management organizations to run the schools like factories are all part of this strategy. Anyone who resists this, whether it is to protect their living and working conditions or to protect their children’s quality of education, must be stifled.

Haimson and Woestehoff do make reference to this in their critique (see below). However, they do so from the perspective of caring parents, laying out numerous important ways children will be harmed by it, while pleading for a seat at the table and arguing that as knowledgeable stakeholders they could help make smarter decisions. While they are very knowledgeable and certainly could make smarter education decisions, their pleas are likely to fall on deaf ears, as the objective here is not children’s well-being, but profits.

“We object to the reform blueprint’s focus on privatization and its push to radically expand the charter school sector. Though some charters may offer students a quality education, one of the largest national studies shows they are, on average, no better, and frequently worse, than neighboring regular public schools. Charters also draw money, space, and other resources from district schools, while enrolling fewer of their communities’ immigrant, special-needs, and poor children.

Tying teacher pay and tenure to gains or losses in students’ standardized-test scores will make the prospect of teaching in inner cities less attractive. According to the National Academy of Sciences, such tests are also a highly unreliable basis for judging teachers. Too many schools have already become joyless test-prep factories, rather than centers of real learning. All children, especially those in inner cities whose parents cannot afford to supplement their schooling, need and deserve a full complement of social studies, science, arts, and physical education. Yet these subjects are being driven out of the curriculum by the high-stakes testing regime imposed in recent years. The Obama blueprint pays lip service to the need for a well-rounded education, but its proposals to link teacher evaluation and pay to the results of high-stakes exams are likely to make a bad situation even worse.

Education is a public trust, and the very foundation of our democracy. Congress holds a great responsibility in its hands in the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We are well aware that powerful corporate and foundation interests are shaping many federal and local education policies with dollars rather than evidence-based solutions. We hope that Congress and the administration will listen more carefully to parents as they deliberate on this crucial piece of legislation, and that the next version of the ESEA formally incorporates our views. As highly knowledgeable primary stakeholders, we must be permitted to have a seat at the decision making table.”

This last section repeats an oft-cited, but inaccurate premise: The education system exists to bolster democracy. While the notion of an egalitarian society in which all members participate equally and freely is a wonderful goal, it is not the political system we have, nor is it something that the education system was designed to bolster. Furthermore, it says nothing about the cruel conditions that force so many to live with so little. Rather, democracy, Congress AND the education system all exist in order to bolster capitalism, to ensure that there continue to be people who can operate the factories, provide services, purchase products and accept this reality stoically and patriotically.

Certainly a good educator has the power to inspire people to fight for freedom and equality. However, if we truly want to gain control of the education system and empower young people to fight for a better society, we need to empower young people now, together with parents and teachers, to confront the ruling elite head on. We need to wrest control of the entire socioeconomic system, not just the education system. We need to strip away the wealth and power that allow so few to rule over so many.