A scathing audit on school funding that found the state did not meet promises made six years ago to help English language learners, foster children and students from poor families sets up a 2020 test of the clout of the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers – and of the willingness of Gov. Gavin Newsom to take on the unions who were early backers of his successful 2018 candidacy. 

State Auditor Elaine Howle’s review focused on how school districts in San Diego, Oakland and Clovis had implemented the Local Control Funding Formula, which was adopted by the Legislature in 2013 at the behest of then-Gov. Jerry Brown. The governor and then-Senate President Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, were among several leaders who said the LCFF would be a game changer by getting additional assets to struggling students.

But Howle found instead that billions in extra funds the formula directed to districts with high percentages of English learners, foster kids and poor families had been used for general needs – including raises for teachers. She concluded there was little or no evidence that the LCFF had boosted these students’ performance.

“In general, we determined that the state’s approach [to Local Control] has not ensured that funding is benefiting students as intended,” Howle wrote.

Howle’s finding confirmed all the major criticisms of the formula that have been raised by education reformers and by civil rights lawyers who have repeatedly sued Los Angeles Unified over its treatment of poor minority students. 

Bill to track school funding couldn’t even get a hearing

But these groups have never gotten far with Local Control changes. Last spring, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, the San Diego Democrat who pushed for the audit, couldn’t even get Assembly Education Committee Chairman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach, to hold a hearing on her bill to require disclosure of how LCFF dollars are being used.

Howle’s audit gives Weber new evidence to push for tracking such spending, and she has said fixing Local Control is her top priority in 2020. But O’Donnell, a former teacher who is close to the CTA and CFT, is unlikely to drop his opposition to tracking the funding.

A key question is likely to be what the governor does. While Newsom won the early endorsements of the two teacher unions, he spent the 2018 campaign telling editorial boards and the Los Angeles and Silicon Valley billionaires who back education reform that he too wanted to fix Local Control to ensure it helped struggling students and had proper accountability protections.

But any attempt to get school districts to stop spending LCFF dollars on teacher compensation – and on rapidly growing teacher pension costs – will go directly against the CTA and the CFT. They already see available school funding as inadequate and are both pushing for billions of dollars in tax hikes in two measures expected to be on the ballot in November 2020. They also won changes that will make it more difficult for charter schools to be approved or renewed using the argument that charters were diverting funding from regular public schools at a time when those schools are desperately underfunded. They are unlikely to accept the notion that the audit must be acted on.

Meanwhile, Newsom has so far used his political capital to advance an education reform that teachers unions also may question. But the reform – using metrics to track the performance of students throughout their K-12 journey – isn’t nearly as contentious as the state forcing many school districts to reorient their Local Control spending and stop using it for raises and pension bills.

In an effort to portray a far-reaching bill as a compromise between charter schools and teacher unions, Gov. Gavin Newsom invited leaders of both groups as well as state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurman to recent signing ceremonies for Assembly Bill 1505.

In remarks at the event, Myrna Castrejón, president and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, asserted that the new law “affirms that high-quality charter schools are here to stay and that the charter model — one that embraces accountability in exchange for the flexibility to innovate — is worth protecting and is of tremendous value to the students we serve.”

But what Newsom and Castrejón sought to depict as a balancing act was instead seen in most news coverage as the biggest blow yet to the California charter school movement, which began slowly in 1992 but now includes 1,300 schools that educate about 660,000 of the state’s K-12 students.

One modification to the original bill by Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach, was a huge win for charter schools. It allows charter applicants and charters seeking renewals to appeal rejections from local school boards to county and state officials. A provision on requiring all charter teachers have formal credentials was revised to give charter schools until 2025 to comply.

Trustees can cite fiscal concerns in opposing charters

But the single most important part of the new law is the provision most sought by teacher unions and most feared by charter advocates. That is language that allows district boards to reject charters solely on financial grounds.

In an era in which annual school spending has soared — up from about $67 billion in 2014 to a record $102 billion now, a 52 percent increase — it would nominally appear that charters don’t have much to worry about from such a provision. Yet many state school districts are struggling to make ends meet now as much as they did during the Great Recession a decade ago, when state spending plunged nearly 20 percent in a single year.

Analysts say one reason districts are in trouble has to do with the increase in special-education students, who cost significantly more to educate and whose statewide budget got a 21 percent boost in May.

But the main headache is the enormous cost of the Legislature’s 2014 bailout of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. It mandates that districts increase their CalSTRS payments by 132 percent from 2014-15 to 2020-21. Yet partly because of a significant increase in the number of retiring teachers getting pensions, the actual hit on district budgets over that span is much worse — 196 percent, the Legislative Analyst’s Office said earlier this year.

Pension bailout eating up surge in school funding

This has had the effect of pushing the total cost of compensation to 90 percent or more of the operating budgets in some districts, with by far the state’s largest district — Los Angeles Unified — among the hardest-hit. In May, LAUSD officials warned that a state takeover by 2022 was likely unless voters approved a parcel tax. Voters opposed the tax despite a heavy lobbying campaign. LAUSD’s fiscal reserves may not even cover the next three years unless state education spending keeps going up, district watchers warn.

But the problems are statewide. The state’s Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team — which helps districts in distress — has had to focus on problems in the counties of San Diego, Sacramento, Oakland and more.

In response, a union-led coalition is seeking to qualify a November 2020 ballot measure modifying Proposition 13, the state’s famous 1978 tax-limitation law. It would allow the valuation of commercial properties to go up each year to reflect their value instead of the maximum 2 percent increase allowed under Proposition 13, generating potentially $5 billion or more in new annual funds for schools. 

The coalition had already qualified a similar measure for the 2020 in fall of last year, but decided to withdraw it because of the fear that its harsh potential effects on small businesses would make it a hard sell.

Five years after Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature passed a sweeping new school finance law meant to provide extra help to struggling students in poor, minority communities, new federal test scores raise difficult questions about the effectiveness of the 2013 measure.

Every two years, at the order of the federal government, the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests are administered to check on fourth- and eighth-graders’ progress in math and reading in all 50 states. While eighth-graders showed gains on reading, California’s overall scores for 2017 released earlier this month remained on average among the worst in the nation, as the EdSource website reported.

But a deeper dive into the data showed that California fourth-graders scored worse on math than any state but Alaska. Poor scores by African-American students caught the eye of Ryan Smith, executive director of the Education-Trust West. “At a time when California is claiming to lead on issues of what’s right in our country, we should see black students improve at far greater rates, not sliding back decades,” he told EdSource.

What made the results particularly disappointing were the high expectations that had accompanied the enactment in 2013 of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) – arguably the biggest change in California public education since Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature approved the hiring of thousands of new teachers in 1996 as part of an ambitious effort to reduce the number of students in first-, second- and third-grade classes to no more than 20 per teacher.

Brown led the push for LCFF, calling it a commitment to social justice and education equity. The measure guaranteed additional funding to districts with high concentrations of English-language learners, impoverished families and foster children. The law’s second main component also eliminated most of the top-down funding edicts imposed on school districts.

Brown argued that local districts had a better grasp on what their students’ needs were than state lawmakers and Sacramento bureaucrats, and that LCFF would give local schools extra resources that would allow them to improve education outcomes for struggling students.

Claims that funds were diverted came early and often

But even before this month’s disappointing test scores, the Local Control program had drawn fire. In January 2015, the Legislative Analyst’s Office said none of the 50 school districts it reviewed had set up adequate standards to make sure the funds were used as they were supposed to be. Soon after, Education Trust-West and other groups which advocate for poor and minority students said funds meant to specifically help these students were instead used for overall district spending, starting with teacher raises.

Brown supported state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson after he formally rejected the criticism – with both saying, in effect, that local control meant local control. Efforts in recent years by lawmakers to force a stricter accounting of LCFF dollars have been blocked by teachers union allies in the Legislature, notably Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, the Long Beach Democrat who chairs the Assembly Education Committee. In 2016, the governor vetoed an LCFF accountability measures that managed to win the Legislature’s unanimous approval.

But in January, in presenting his final budget before being termed out, Brown offered an indirect concession to those upset with how LCFF dollars had been used.

“While many districts have seized the opportunities offered under the formula to better serve their students, others have been slower to make changes,” his 2018-19 spending plan noted. “To improve student achievement and transparency, the budget proposes requiring school districts to create a link between their local accountability plans and their budgets to show how increased funding is being spent to support English learners, students from low-income families, and youth in foster care.”

A bill sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would have added three members to the South Coast Air Quality Management Board, which regulates air quality in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties.

And while that probably seems as dull as watching paint dry to nearly everyone who just read it, the measure had major implications for Republicans, local governments, business interests, environmentalists and residents of the broad district that has some of the most toxic air in the nation.

De Leon introduced the board-packing plan shortly after Republicans engineered a takeover of the board, swinging the focus from environmentalists to business interests. In December, the board disregarded SCAQMD staff recommendations and instead adopted rules on refineries backed by the oil industry, and in March it ousted the the longtime director who had been seen as anti-business.  

Representatives to the board are local city council members and county supervisors, appointed locally. De Leon’s bill would have added three seats to the 13-member board, appointed by the the Senate Rules Committee (which de Leon chairs), the Assembly speaker and the governor.

During floor debate, proponents argued that the measure was about adding diversity to the almost all-white board that had no Latinos, which defies the demographics of the heavily-Latino region. 

“Needless to say, I’m disappointed,” de Leon told CalWatchdog on Thursday. “Any time people of color are excluded from decision-making processes directly tied to their health and wellbeing, fundamental change is needed. This is a textbook example of institutional racism.”

De Leon added that Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, a Republican who also sits on the SCAQMD board, is termed-out and will soon be replaced by “someone far more progressive on the matter,” likely shifting the balance of power back to the environmentalists. 

However, of the current board’s ethnic composition, and the persistent lack of diversity, belies the fact that it’s largely been in Democratic, or environmentalist, control for years. De Leon did not say whether he’d reintroduce similar measures in the future.

Local control

Many opponents of the measure argued that the bill was a power grab by state policy makers at the expense of local control. And the large bloc of Democrats who either voted no or abstained suggest that the matter is not purely partisan.

“State versus local, that’s what this is about,” said Mike Madrid, a GOP strategist who helped devise the SDAQMD takeover. “It happened to be Republicans, but it was a state/local fight.”

But it was still a big win for Republicans, who are steadily slipping in their share of voter registration throughout the state, face the very real possibility of a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature next year and are not considered a consistent threat in any statewide election. For Republicans, local offices are where they can have a policy impact.

And despite several major policy victories for environmentalists, the defeat of the de Leon measure is a big win for the advocates of economic development. 

John Husing, the chief economist of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, has been studying Southern California’s economy since 1964. His research suggests a correlation between the rise of poverty and the rise of environmental regulations in the state. Husing argues that while the policies have had a positive impact on air quality in the region, the policies are imbalanced in relation to business development and subsequently drive poverty, which affects health. 

“The whole air-quality, green initiative is having detrimental effect on moving people out of poverty and into the middle class,” Husing said of the SCAQMD region and the neighboring central valley.

Environment v. economy

Environmentalists have often said that any job loss associated with these air-quality policies would be offset by job creation in green sectors. However, Husing says statistics say that isn’t true, at least not in areas with high unemployment, like many communities in the SCAQMD.

Citing data from the California Employment Development Department and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Husing said from 2010 to 2016 the U.S. added 836,000 manufacturing jobs, compared to California which added 42,500 — a mere 5.1 percent. While the growth rate is on pace with with the national average, it lags by over 50 percent behind the state’s share of gross state product.

Husing said that the sluggish growth of manufacturing jobs in the state is attributed to three factors: Companies leaving, companies growing beyond the state’s borders and out-of-state companies refusing to grow in the state.

“Whose affected by that? It’s not the companies,” Husing said. “They’re doing fine some place else. It’s workers whose jobs are never created. … So you’re basically cutting off routes to the middle class for those workers.”

The vote

The measure failed just before the stroke of midnight on Wednesday, 30-36. And while it is seen as a victory for Republicans, the measure was largely defeated by the 14 assemblymembers, all Democrats, who didn’t vote.

Those who didn’t vote were Luis Alejo of Watsonville, Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, Kansen Chu of San Jose, Jim Frazier of Oakley, Rich Gordon of Menlo Park, Adam Gray of Merced (who was not present), Kevin Mullin of South San Francisco and Shirley Weber of San Diego. The six who didn’t vote and live in the region were Ian Calderon of Whittier, Eduardo Garcia of Coachella, Mike Gipson of Carson, Roger Hernandez of West Covina, Chris Holden of Pasadena and Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach.

His red pen and marked-up copy stood out as he and fellow protester Mike McGetrick reached the sixth floor of a steely high-rise in Anaheim.

Their message for Assemblyman Tom Daly, an Anaheim Democrat, was simple: “I’m just gonna go with this,” Lauten said, unfolding his statement. “I’m gonna tell him to say no,” McGetrick said.

With only one working month left in session, California legislators will likely consider a bill that would eliminate most religious exemptions from Title IX requirements for colleges and universities that receive public funds. Title IX is a federal policy designed to combat gender discrimination in colleges and universities, and SB1146 would, among other things, require housing and restroom accommodations that adhere to the student’s gender identity.

Religious freedom v. discrimination

Lauten, McGetrick and others split into groups to target five Southern California assemblymen last week to urge a “no” vote. Some groups came with more posters, cameras and statements for the media than the Anaheim protesters, but all were ready to discuss their concerns.

Opponents argue the bill would restrict their First Amendment protections, while supporters say current and prospective LGBT students are discriminated against by religious colleges, especially after federal recommendations that Title IX should include transgender students.

“This is about putting outrageous pressure on schools, opening them up to interminable liabilities, and at its core, making it easy for people to deprive these schools of the opportunity to operate by and to pursue the core principles they’ve laid out,” said Arthur Schaper, the director of California MassResistance, a group that aims to limit the LGBT movement and organized the protests.

But does it fight discrimination?

SB1146, sponsored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, would allow only colleges that prepare students for religious vocations to apply for a Title IX exemption, a special waiver that allows colleges to make admissions and hiring decisions based on their religious beliefs about sexuality. The bill would also require that colleges make public their Title IX exemptions.

Current law exempts religious institutions from both federal and state laws if they believe Title IX requirements are not consistent with their religious beliefs. 

“All students deserve to feel safe in institutions of higher education, regardless of whether they are public or private,” Lara said in a statement in April. “California has established strong protections for the LGBTQ community and private universities should not be able to use faith as an excuse to discriminate and avoid complying with state laws. No university should have a license to discriminate.” Lara did not respond to CalWatchdog’s requests for comment.

Besides Daly’s office, California MassResistance activists visited district offices of four other Assembly Democrats: Ian Calderon of Whittier, Miguel Santiago of Los Angeles, Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach and Chris Holden of Pasadena.

Exemptions on the rise

At least 42 California institutions qualify for the exemption. And of the nine that have submitted applications, seven have been granted and two are pending, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Exemptions are usually granted, though the college must specify the areas to which their application applies, such as in housing, athletics, facilities or admission by gender identity.

Though Title IX exemptions have been around since the federal Higher Education Act was amended in 1972, exemption requests have soared in the last few years since protections were expanded to include transgender students.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, two schools requested exemptions between 2009 and 2013. In 2014 and 2015, there were at least 56.

Limits to religious freedom?

The Supreme Court has ruled on the limits of religious freedom at universities before. Perhaps the most well-known ruling was against Bob Jones University in South Carolina.

Bob Jones University did not admit black students until 1971, but barred interracial dating and marriages among students after that. In 1976, the university lost its tax exempt status based on IRS regulations against racially discriminatory admissions policies.

The Supreme Court upheld the IRS’ decision to withhold tax exempt status in 1983. Instead of changing its interracial dating policy, the university chose to keep it intact and pay years of back taxes.

“Title IX was created to stop discrimination based on sex,” Schaper said. “Now Democrats are distorting the word ‘sex’ to mean orientation and identity.”

Schaper is also concerned about the bill’s requirement that makes Title IX exemptions public. Colleges would be required to advertise their Title IX exemption status on admission materials, in student orientations and in a prominent place on campus.

“This puts an undue burden on colleges and makes them vulnerable to lawsuits,” Schaper said.

Discussion on campus

An LGBT activist group at Biola University in La Mirada is pushing against religious colleges from the other side of Title IX.

In May, Erin Green, the executive director of Biolans’ Equal Ground — a group of Christian, affirming LGBTQ students and supporters — wrote a letter to the college asking it withdraw its pending Title IX exemption request.

“There is a vast difference between upholding Biola University code of conduct versus the outright discrimination against a certain group of people,” Green wrote. “The request for a Title IX exemption is an attack on your LGBTQ students and their safety.”

But Biola opposes SB1146 and it doesn’t appear institutional leaders will withdraw the college’s exemption request.

“We are not asking the LGBT community to change who they are,” Biola president Barry Corey said in a video created as part of the college’s “Oppose SB1146” campaign. “We are simply asking that they do not force us to change who we are, either.”

SB1146 already passed the Senate and faces a floor vote in the Assembly. If it passes, the bill will reach Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk later this year. Brown has been supportive of pro-transgender and LGBT legislation, most recently signing the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act” in 2015.

The perceived retaliation came two months after the West Covina Democrat was asked to step down by the bill’s sponsor amid domestic violence allegations (that he’s denied) surfaced and after being placed under a temporary restraining order from his wife.

Background

The bill, SB1166, was a priority of the Legislative Women’s Caucus and especially its chairwoman, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, who had called for Hernández to step down along with other members of the women’s caucus.

The bill previously passed three Senate committees and the Senate floor along party lines, making it a measure widely supported by Democrats.

Outside the Capitol, it was supported by women’s rights activists like Sandra Fluke, who made national news in 2012 after being called a “slut” and “prostitute” by Rush Limbaugh for advocating for women’s access to birth control at a Congressional hearing while a law student at Georgetown University.

Join me & my fellow #StrongerCA coalition mbrs to urge @Roger_Hernandez stand w/#CA families & supprt @SenHannahBeth #SB1166 #NewParentLeave

— Sandra Fluke (@SandraFluke) June 22, 2016

Another group, the Equal Rights Advocates, which describes themselves as “civil rights champions, fighting since 1974 to expand and protect the opportunities of all women and girls,” also urged support earlier in the day.

.@Roger_Hernandez we urge your 'aye' vote on #SB1166 in Assm. Labor today! All new parents & children need bonding time. #StrongerCA

— EqualRightsAdvocates (@EqualRightsAdv) June 22, 2016

Abstain = No

There were other liberal activists and groups tweeting support, but when the bill came up for a vote in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, four of the seven members abstained from voting, including Hernández, the chairman.

Bill was priority of@CaWomensCaucus Jackson had called on committee chair @Roger_Hernandez to step down following domestic abuse accusations

— Katie Orr (@1KatieOrr) June 22, 2016

Hernandez gave no indication at the hearing as to why he abstained from voting, and his office didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment later in the day from CalWatchdog.

.@Roger_Hernandez did not comment on the bill or explain way he abstained during committee hearing.

— Katie Orr (@1KatieOrr) June 22, 2016

How others “voted”

The other members who abstained were Democratic Assemblymen Kansen Chu of San Jose, Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach and Eric Linder, a Republican from Corona.

Chu and O’Donnell’s offices did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CalWatchdog. A spokesman for Linder told CalWatchdog that Linder supported expanding family leave and the main thrust of the bill, but had concerns over certain provisions.

Democrats Tony Thurmond of Richmond and Kevin McCarty of Sacramento voted in favor of the measure, while Republican Jim Patterson of Fresno voted against. 

Hmm. An all-male committee kills a bill that was priority of the women's caucus. #SB1166 @1KatieOrr @SenHannahBeth

— Laurel Rosenhall (@LaurelRosenhall) June 22, 2016

.@Roger_Hernandez, abstained on #SB1166, preserving the right for employers to threaten new parents with termination if they take #paidleave

— jenya cassidy (@oneunionmom) June 23, 2016

Since the domestic violence allegations surfaced, Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, has chosen not to take action against Hernández, including removing him from the Labor and Employment chairmanship. Rendon did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the hearing. 

Allegations

Hernández’s wife, Baldwin Park City Councilmember Susan Rubio, previously accused him of assaulting her 20 times over a three-year period. In divorce court last month, Rubio detailed eight alleged incidents that included being choked with a belt, being beat with a broom while on the ground and being threatened with a knife after having been accused of an affair. 

No charges have been filed against Hernández.

Hernández is termed out of the Assembly. He had hoped to win a seat in Congress held by fellow-Democrat Grace Napolitano, but failed to advance from the primary. Hernández recently blamed his primary failure on Rubio. 

Past allegations

Hernández has been accused of wrongdoing before. In 2012, an ex-girlfriend accused him of domestic violence, although charges were never filed due to insufficient evidence. 

That same year, Hernández was arrested for drunk driving in a state vehicle, but was acquitted by a jury on one charge, while the jury was hung on another. 

And in 2015, allegations of political money laundering against Hernández were dropped by the Fair Political Practices Commission after two key witnesses were unable to testify — one had serious medical issues while the other had passed away.