In interviews, Newsom has depicted the shift and his other proposals to beef up early childhood education as the sort of obvious ways to improve public schools that are within reach because of the state’s improved fiscal health. Assembly Budget Committee Chair Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, told the San Francisco Chronicle that Democrats in the Legislature “absolute agree” that full-day kindergarten should be a state priority. Other education stakeholders, especially teachers unions, agree.

But as debate over Newsom’s proposal ramps up, advocates of full-day kindergarten will be asked to explain why claims about its effectiveness are not corroborated by the strong majority of academic studies of such programs in California and elsewhere.

A 2009 Public Policy Institute of California study found that while parents and educators are enthusiastic about full-day kindergarten, “research to date … has provided little evidence of long-term academic benefits beyond kindergarten or first grade.” This was backed up by a peer-reviewed 2012 study of some kindergartners’ results in California standardized tests.

The single study that appears to have been based on the most data – a RAND think tank analysis of the academic performance of nearly 8,000 kindergarten students in the 1998-99 school year – was even more downbeat. While RAND offered some qualifications, it said that overall, its research “reinforces the findings of earlier studies that suggest full-day kindergarten programs may not enhance achievement in the long term. Furthermore, this study raises the possibility that full-day kindergarten programs may actually be detrimental to mathematics performance and to nonacademic readiness skills.” The latter is a reference to students’ willingness to take instruction and participate constructively in class.

Duke study one of many to find initial benefits fade

These conclusions were supported by a peer-reviewed study released in 2010 by Duke University researchers. It found that initial benefits from attending full-day kindergarten “disappeared” by third grade and that “children may not have as positive an attitude toward school in full-day versus half-day kindergarten and may experience more behavior problems.”

However, on its website, the National Education Association depicts the benefits of full-day kindergarten as largely beyond challenge. An “advocacy guide” cites reporting by Deborah Viadero of Education Week showing that a study of 17,000 students in Philadelphia had found enduring gains from full-day kindergarten. But Viadero has also reported on other studies that reflect the phenomenon cited by other researchers of initial gains by kindergartners disappearing in subsequent years.

The NEA also cites research by the San Francisco-based WestEd advocacy group, in particular a 2005 policy brief that doesn’t refer to or offer counterarguments to any of the studies that raise doubts about whether the benefits of full-time kindergarten endure.

More recently, in 2014, the New America Foundation – which, like WestEd, has long called for greater investment in public schools – touted a study by Chloe R. Gibbs at the University of Virginia that the foundation called the “best research yet on the effects of full-day kindergarten.” New America said the study “holds some preliminary good news for proponents of full-day kindergarten.”

But the New America account of the study went on to note that it was too soon to conclude whether the initial gains identified by Gibbs would last – the central issue raised by most previous academic research.

Three times in the past 18 months, prominent journalistic organizations have questioned whether Silicon Valley has peaked. Leading off the bad-mouthing was the hometown San Jose Mercury News, which

That was followed by the London Guardian reporting in May 2017 that start-ups were increasingly likely to fail as the tech venture-capital model struggled, and by Bloomberg News reporting in September 2017 that the high cost of housing was leaving thousands of jobs unfilled.

This month, the Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project, which is headed by the San Jose-based Silicon Valley Leadership Group, released a report on the region that was at least as bleak as the media accounts. It said Silicon Valley was still thriving and a global leader – but that it was unlikely to maintain its status as the U.S. pace-setter in creating tech jobs unless housing construction sharply increased, to end the upward spiral in rent and mortgage payments. A modest tract house can fetch more than $1 million in San Jose and triple that in wealthier suburbs. Rental costs, even in less affluent neighborhoods, are among the nation’s highest.

“The gap between job and housing growth is large and widening,” stated the report, which defined Silicon Valley as including the city-county of San Francisco, Santa Clara County and San Mateo County.

Many of the key findings were based on comparisons of where Silicon Valley stood in 2010 versus 2016. The study noted there was a 29 percent increase in payroll jobs during that span, but only a 4 percent increase in total housing units. As more people were forced to commute to Silicon Valley, the average commute lengthened by 18.9 percent over the six years.

“An average Silicon Valley commuter now spends 72 minutes commuting per day, round trip. This figure has grown marginally since last year and remains second only to the commute time of New York City workers, who spend 74 minutes commuting,” the report noted.

Region’s population fell despite economic boom

Silicon Valley saw another negative landmark in 2016. Despite a booming economy, the report cited U.S. Census Bureau population estimates showing the region had a slight decline in population.

The downbeat report came as no surprise to one former Silicon Valley resident: Santa Cruz attorney Kate Downing, who resigned from the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission and moved from the city in 2016 because her family could no longer handle Palo Alto’s housing costs. She told the San Francisco Chronicle, “We’re just not building enough housing. More correctly, cities are not permitting developers to build enough housing. … I think more affordable housing would have kept us in Silicon Valley.”

Lawmakers from the region have had some success in trying to make it easier to build homes in California. State Sen. Scott Weiner, D-San Francisco, was the lead author of a bill enacted in 2017 that limits cities with bad records on new housing from preventing new projects that meet basic zoning rules.

This year, Weiner and co-authors Senator Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, and Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, have introduced Senate Bill 827. With exceptions, it would make it far easier to build small apartment-condo buildings up to 85 feet in height within a half-mile of a transit center.

The November

Progressive Democrats in both the state Assembly and Senate are eager to broadly expand public services. Brown, however, has spent his second go-around as governor emphasizing the dubiousness of adding permanent new spending programs when state revenue is so volatile because of its dependence on income and capital gains taxes paid by the very wealthy.

The governor warns that even a moderate recession could lead to a loss of $55 billion in revenue over three years. Given that revenue plunged $30 billion in one year at the start of the Great Recession, the memories of the budget carnage under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are fresh, especially the huge cuts in K-12 education spending.

But the California Nurses Association and its legislative allies are signalling they’re ready for another full-on push for a single-payer health care system. Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, continues to ask proponents how such a system could be funded, given that its estimated annual cost of $400 billion is more than triple the state’s current general fund budget of $125 billion. He effectively killed Senate Bill 562, the CNA-backed single-payer measure, last session, perturbed that advocates refused to offer clear explanations of how it would be funded.

Universal free preschool, health care for undocumented sought

The next most costly initiative on the table is a long-discussed proposal to provide universal free preschool to 4-year-olds. Many Democrats share former Assembly Speaker Darrell Steinberg’s view that it should be first on the list of any new state programs. Steinberg’s 2014 proposal would have cost an estimated $2.5 billion a year. More recently, the Common Sense nonprofit advocacy group has been lobbying for a more ambitious program than Steinberg’s with a price-tag of at least $5 billion a year.

Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco – the lawmaker who so far has issued the most comprehensive proposed budget – wants to spend $4.3 billion of the $7.5 billion in additional revenue expected by the LAO, with the remainder going to the state’s rainy-day fund.

Ting’s most notable proposal is to provide Medi-Cal health care to undocumented immigrants up to age 19, at an annual cost of about $1 billion after smaller initial outlays. He also wants to increase college scholarships, restore cost-of-living increases for state benefits going to the aged, blind and disabled, and increase access to child care. Ting’s plan also calls for an expansion of preschool, but with a plan that’s less far-reaching than Steinberg’s proposal.

Under the California Constitution, the governor must present a budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 by Jan. 10. In May, after the state Department of Finance updates its revenue and expenditure forecasts, the governor’s office issues a revised budget.

Brown made few concessions during the last budget cycle. In May, he ignored the then-loud push for a dramatic expansion of state health care, but he did agree to increase salaries for child care providers and to continue funding a joint state-counties program meant to ease access to health services for seniors and low-income families.

University of California President Janet Napolitano has been under siege since March 2016, when state Auditor Elaine Howle released a

At least initially, Napolitano and some regents dismissed the criticism before finally giving in and capping nonresident admissions last week. But the Golden State’s other giant higher education system – California State University – got the message loud and clear: In-state students must be the highest priority. Last week, CSU formally guaranteed that a qualified California high school graduate will be offered admission to at least one of CSU’s 23 campuses.

The policy change was part of negotiations by CSU leaders, the Brown administration and state lawmakers over CSU’s 2017-18 budget. The $5.4 billion allocated is up $344 million over the previous budget, with the state general fund paying for $3.2 billion and student tuition and fees expected to generate $2.2 billion.

The admissions guarantee comes after many years of CSU denying admission to tens of thousands of qualified California high school graduates – most recently, 31,000 in fall 2016. CSU officials previously said they didn’t have the space.

But last week in a prepared statement, CSU Chancellor Timothy White said the policy change will “better serve Californians.”

The decision was lauded by one of Napolitano’s and UC’s harshest critics – Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco. “The most important thing is this gives California’s students more options,”  the Assembly budget chairman told the Bay Area News Group.

Student trustee worries about adequate funding

But the 2017-18 president for the California State Student Association – CSU student trustee Maggie White – had a more mixed reaction. While she welcomed the new policy, she told the Southern California News Group that CSU needed more funding. The $344 million budget hike represents a nearly 7 percent increase, but CSU’s executive budget summary suggests much of that amount will be eaten up by higher salary and benefit costs and some new mandatory expenditures.

The CSU policy is modeled on one adopted by UC in which students who graduate in the top 9 percent of their class are supposed to gain admission to a UC campus.

The CSU guarantee will take effect for spring 2018 California high school graduates. The final details will be worked out, but the minimum standard for admission is likely to be similar to CSU’s present requirement that in-state college applicants have at least a 3.0. Students who have stronger SAT and ACT scores can win admission with GPAs less than 3.0.

The policy change will be a relief to many students and parents, but there’s frustration still ahead for high school graduates in parts of the state where CSU campuses are much more selective than the systemwide norm. According to a website which tracks the most recent college admissions statistic at every U.S. degree-granting institution, seven CSU campuses reject more than half of all applicants. The acceptance rate was lowest at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo (31 percent), followed by San Diego State and Long Beach State (both 34 percent), Cal Poly Pomona (39 percent), Cal State Fullerton (42 percent), Cal State Northridge (46 percent) and CSU Monterey (49 percent).

Created to make California’s tax system work better, the Board of Equalization has found itself under a cloud of radical criticism, plunging it into a moment of extraordinary crisis. 

“At a chaotic budget hearing for an agency that collects a third of California’s taxes, two lawmakers said late Wednesday they don’t believe the Board of Equalization can be trusted to fix the accounting deficiencies and misuse of public resources that a recent audit described,” the Sacramento Bee reported. 

“I have no faith in the organization to adopt practices,” railed Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, who chairs the Assembly Budget Committee, according to the Bee. “You can adopt all the policies you wish. But I have zero faith that you will practice your polices because you have not demonstrated that.” His remarks, the paper added, “came at a meeting in which the Board of Equalization’s executive director refused to answer questions because he said he feared a lawsuit, Ting asked five state employees whether they leaked a copy of a critical audit to The Sacramento Bee and Ting read an anonymous email that accused the agency’s top lawyer of misleading him during the hearing.”

Official sanction

The heated controversy came to a head this month in the wake of a devastating state administrative report showing bad accounting of nearly $50 million in funds. “Citing a review that found widespread mismanagement at the state Board of Equalization, State Controller Betty T. Yee […] called for stripping the panel of responsibilities for tax administration and audit and compliance functions so it can focus on handling taxpayer appeals,” the Los Angeles Times explained. “Yee’s proposal came in response to an evaluation by the state Department of Finance that found board officials were improperly redirecting resources and employees to pet projects in their districts.”

According to the investigation, conducted by the department’s Office of State Audits and Evaluations, “concluded the elected tax board members are violating the California Budget Act, which requires that they get approval from the Department of Finance and notify lawmakers before they move revenue-generating staff such as auditors to other duties,” Bloomberg BNA reported. “The tax board also doesn’t keep track of staff hours or calculate the amount of lost revenue resulting from employees being redirected.”

“The violations skew the required information the board must provide to lawmakers under the Budget Act each year about costs and lost revenue collections due to those reassignments, the auditor said. Without accurate information about staffing, the Legislature can’t assess the effectiveness of the SBOE’s existing compliance efforts or be sure the tax agency’s cost-benefit ratios are accurate, the audit said.”

A tightening circle

The Board has weathered sharp criticism before, especially in recent years. But this time, few if any outside the Board itself have offered much of a defense. “In the 1990s, Gov. Pete Wilson, facing budget deficits, sought to merge the board with the Franchise Tax Board,” as the Fresno Bee editorial board noted. “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took office in 2003 promising to blow up the boxes, and took aim at the tax boards. And yet the Board of Equalization survives because many legislators, thinking about the next election, hesitate to abolish an office that pays $142,577 a year.” 

For the Board, today’s trouble began in earnest two years ago, when heightened scrutiny from Sacramento began to close in. “Although the board was dinged in November 2015 when an audit by Yee’s office found that it mistakenly sent $47.8 million in sales tax revenue to the state’s general fund, the Finance Department’s newest audit revealed that the board has done little since then to stanch the bleeding,” Courthouse News observed. “The board is still struggling with its accounting, having revised its proposed allocation adjustment 11 times to correct for errors and omissions,” the site added. 

Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, introduced legislation requiring the DMV to revoke registrations for self-driving vehicles in violation of the state’s Autonomous Vehicle Tester Program. The bill is a response to Uber, which last year began testing its vehicles without a permit, even picking up passengers, violating state regulations. And one of the vehicles ran a red light. 

Under Ting’s bill, law enforcement would have the authority to impound violating vehicles and the DMV could fine as much as $25,000 per vehicle per day. 

“I applaud our innovation economy and all the companies developing autonomous vehicle technology, but no community should face what we did in San Francisco,” Ting said in a statement. “The pursuit of innovation does not include a license to put innocent lives at risk.”

Permits

Twenty companies have 130 test vehicles on the road under permits, which cost $150 each. To get permitted, vehicles must be registered and insured. Documentation both certifying the vehicle is for testing only and describing the technology must be provided as well.  

Last year, Uber refused to get permits before debuting its pilot program. The DMV revoked the cars’ registrations and offered to expedite permits, but Uber packed up its driver-less car program and moved to Arizona instead. 

“We have stopped our self-driving pilot in California, but remain 100 percent committed to our home state and will be redoubling our efforts to develop workable statewide rules,” an Uber spokesperson told CalWatchdog. “Our cars recently departed for Arizona by truck. We’re excited to have the support of Governor (Doug) Ducey.”

If signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, the ban on gender-specific bathrooms will begin on March 1, 2017, which would be a significant victory in the transgender movement. 

“Restricting access to single use restrooms defies reason,” said Assembly member Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, the bill’s sponsor. “It is a basic necessity of life and everyone should get in and out on the same terms.”

Earlier this year, North Carolina passed the opposite of this bill — a measure requiring people to use public restrooms that correspond to their birth gender. San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles are among the U.S. cities that have banned official travel to North Carolina in response to the law.

A bill working its way through the Legislature would open up the accreditation process for California community colleges to ensure greater transparency and require more consistent application of academic standards. Assembly Bill 1397 by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would require community college accreditation meetings to be open to the public, force accreditation teams to adopt new conflict of interest guidelines and ensure that sanctioned colleges have a clear path to appeal their cases.

“We need education to be the great equalizer in our society but that role is compromised when education standards are enforced unfairly, arbitrarily, and in secret,” Ting said in a press release. “We need these reforms to end abuses of power from our accreditor. Sweeping change is needed that put the needs of our students first.”

CA’s community college accreditation process

Technically, anyone can start their own college or university in California. However, education officials limit federal student aid and scholarship funds to accredited schools.

“Accreditation is the recognition that an institution maintains standards requisite for its graduates to gain admission to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve credentials for professional practice,” the U.S. Department of Education explains on its website. “The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality.”

Neither the state nor federal education departments directly handle accreditation, rather independent non-profit entities, often consisting of college professors and administrators, step in to review colleges. That makes the accreditation process an almost quasi-governmental function: the review, which is mandated by law, is frequently guided by public employees, but is formally governed by the guidelines and rules of a private organization.

Consequently, California’s 112 community colleges are dependent on accreditation by the Accreditation Commission on Community and Junior Colleges to receive state funds. If a community college is not granted a seal of approval by the ACCJC every six years, it loses most of its funding. In recent years, the ACCJC has come under fire from the California State Auditor, the U.S. Department of Education and a California Superior Court for its practices.

Controversial decision to revoke CCSF’s accreditation

Asm. Phil Ting

Critics of the accreditation process say that officials use their non-profit status to evade public scrutiny and enforce their demands on public colleges.

In 2014, the Bureau of State Audits published its audit of the accreditation process, which had been requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. According to a legislative analysis, the audit’s findings included:

• Inconsistent application of the accreditation process with some colleges granted more time to address problems;
• Deficiencies in the appeals process with colleges banned from presenting new evidence during an appeal;
• Lack of transparency in accreditation decision-making.

The audit was driven in part by the ACCJC’s controversial decision in 2013 to revoke City College of San Francisco’s accreditation. Its accreditation team found CCSF deficient in a dozen areas, ranging from seemingly trivial issues such as failing to “revise the college’s mission statement” to serious questions about the college’s ability to accurately report financial information.

Yet, the ACCJC’s decision-making itself raised questions as students, faculty and even members of the media were excluded from the committee meeting to decide the college’s fate.

“Accreditation should be about protecting our needs while going to college to get ahead,” said Shanell Williams, who served as a student trustee at City College of San Francisco. “When accreditation decisions are made in secret, our voices are silenced and our futures are put at risk.”

CCSF’s accreditation ultimately led to litigation, which concluded with Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow ruling that ACCJC broke the law. Among the court’s findings: The committee failed to adequately address conflicts of interest by commissioners, did not include enough academics on its site visit and violated federal regulations on accreditation.

“The state has the authority to regulate accreditation processes, and the recent CA Superior Court verdict confirms this fact,” wrote Timothy Killikelly, president of the American Federation of Teachers, Local 2121, the union of professors at City College of San Francisco. “AB1397 proposes reasonable reforms to the community college accreditation process to ensure that the values of fairness, objectivity, consistency and transparency guide accreditation procedures.”

AB1397 brings more transparency and accountability

Those problems led Ting to introduce AB1397, which he says will “bring the community college accreditation process into compliance with state and federal laws.” Specifically, the legislation will:

• Ban evaluation teams from including anyone affiliated with the commission or the college under review;
• Adopt a legal right of appeal for sanctioned colleges;
• Require public access to ACCJC meetings and guarantee that meeting minutes are posted online.

Ting’s legislation has received support from educators that have long sought reforms to the accreditation process.

“The accreditation process should ensure that the ACCJC is basing their decisions on accurate information,” said Mike Claire, president of the College of San Mateo, who has experience with the college accreditation review process. “Thus, our system of peer-based accreditation should welcome transparency in the decisions regarding the accredited status of our community colleges.

He added, “Ironically, what we ask of our students in the classroom and of our colleges is neither encouraged nor desired by our accreditor when assessing a college to ensure it meets accreditation standards.”

Conservative college subject to accreditation review

Larry Arnn

Earlier this month, the bill passed the state Assembly on a 61-18 vote, with a majority of Republicans opposed. Although California Republicans are largely opposed to Ting’s accreditation reforms, conservative-leaning higher education institutions could ultimately be beneficiaries of a more transparent college accreditation process.

Hillsdale College, a private college in south-central Michigan, has shunned all federal funds – including financial aid and grants – to secure its independence. That independence is currently being threatened by the college accreditation process.

“In the ’60s the federal government designated them (independent accrediting agencies) as the pathway to eligibility for the federal money,” Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College told the Wall Street Journal. “None of that means beans to us, but now the accrediting agencies are living under standards the Department of Education gives them.”

Last Thursday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee held in committee legislation that was strongly opposed by ride-sharing companies, drivers and customers. Assembly Bill 24, which was introduced by Asssemblyman Adrin Nazarian, D-Sherman Oaks, would have required ride-share drivers to undergo random drug and alcohol testing and comply with new background check requirements.

Critics said that the bill was an effort to regulate transportation network companies (TNC) out of business and force Californians back into taxi cabs.

Appropriations Committee holds AB24

As part of the normal legislative process, bills that are expected to cost the state money are sent to the Appropriations Committee. Any bill with an annual cost of more than $150,000 is automatically sent to the committee’s Suspense File. After the state budget is presented, lawmakers take up the Suspense File and consider which bills to advance based on available funds.

Nazarian’s legislation, according to an analysis by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, was expected to cost taxpayers nearly three-quarters of a million dollars, as a result of new review processes by the Department of Motor Vehicles and state Public Utilities Commission.

“Given the significant number of current, and probably future TNC drivers, the PUC’s workload will expand considerably,” the Appropriations Committee concluded. “PUC staff currently process by hand vehicle registration information provided by CPCs.”

The new requirement was estimated to cost $680,000 for an IT consultant and new positions to review thousands of initial applications. That cost was enough to prevent the bill from making the Appropriations Committee’s cut.

In addition to costs to the state, ride-sharing companies argued that Nazarian’s proposal for mandatory drug testing was a costly burden on their drivers, a majority of whom are part-time workers. According to Lyft, 78 percent of its drivers work fewer than 15 hours per week. Meanwhile, the average Uber driver logs between 15 and 20 hours per month.

“The California Legislature should embrace companies like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, who are not only changing the future of transportation, but are driving economic growth and job creation in cities all around the state,” said Robert Callahan, the state executive director for the Internet Association. “A primary reason for the wide-scale adoption of ridesharing by consumers is the enhanced safety experience.”

Uber embraces DMV Pull Notice

Instead of Nazarian’s bill, state lawmakers embraced a plan supported by industry that would enhance safety without undercutting ride-sharing services. Assembly Bill 1422, authored by Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, would require companies, such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, to use the DMV’s Employer Pull Notice Program. That system notifies companies when a driver gets into an accident or is convicted of driving under the influence, among other notifications.

“The DMV Pull Notice program helps businesses and government agencies ensure that unsafe drivers are taken off the road quickly,” said Cooper, who spent 30 years with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. “AB1422 would improve safety on our roads, particularly for passengers utilizing Uber and other similar transportation services.”

The bill is supported by Uber because it would automate the driver review process for ride-sharing companies. According to Cooper’s office, ride-sharing companies “must manually access DMV records on a quarterly basis to review driving records – a process that is both inefficient and slow to catch such things as DUIs, accidents or license suspensions.” With Uber’s backing, the bill has received unanimous support throughout the legislative process.

Unanimous approval for bill to allow ride-share carpooling

In addition to embracing the DMV’s Pull Notice Program, ride-sharing companies are working with state lawmakers to pave the way for ride-share carpooling.

Last month, the California State Assembly passed legislation authored by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, that will allow companies to split fares between passengers.

“With climate change accelerating, we must take a hard look at transportation because it is the largest single source of emissions,” Ting said in a press release. “We have long encouraged public transit and carpooling to reduce traffic and air pollution. Extending the environmental mindset to ridesharing requires changing a 50-year-old law. That’s what this is all about.”

Last fall, after ride-sharing companies announced new carpooling services, state regulators sent the companies threatening letters and warned that such programs violate state law, according to CNET.

“In less than a year, thousands of California residents have helped get cars off the road, lessen congestion and improve our environment,” Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend told the LA Times earlier this year. “Now the California Legislature has the opportunity to embrace this innovation by codifying this service and adopting AB1360.”

Last year, the legislature approved Assembly Bill 2293, which forced ride-sharing companies to abide by new statewide regulations. That law requires companies to carry at least $1 million in commercial-grade insurance and set new minimum levels of additional insurance to be carried by drivers. The bill also ordered the state’s Public Utilities Commission and Department of Insurance to produce a study on transportation network companies before December 31, 2017 – to see how well the new law is working.