Apparently, algebra is hard for community college students:
According to NPR, Chancellor Eloy Ortiz Oakley is “among a growing number of educators who view intermediate algebra as an obstacle to students obtaining their credentials — particularly in fields that require no higher level math skills.”
A California school choice advocate took issue with an AP story that school choice leads to segregation. “Most Black folks wouldn’t call Morehouse or Howard segregated,” Dick Tillotson points out in The Education Post. “Separation and segregation are different, segregation in this context is aligned with racism and involves the use of power, of excluding us and leaving us with less than a fair share.”
“To say Black families are ‘pushed’ by charters misses the point—they are pushed by a historically racist system that I personally don’t think has really changed its spots. But that’s just me.”
This might work. “A group of prominent lawyers representing teachers and students from poor performing schools is suing California because so many school children do not know how to read and they argue the state has done nothing about it,” the AP reported in a story which appeared Tuesday in The Mercury News. “The advocacy law firm, Public Counsel, filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court to demand the California Department of Education respond to its ‘literacy crisis’ and implement recommendations to address the problem that were proposed in the state’s own report five years ago.”
Something called the College Futures Foundation thinks California’s state and other public universities need more money–at least $47 billion for maintenance alone.
What they are more reticent about is where the money the universities already got actually went.
Nearly half a million people have fled California, New York and Illinois, Will Racke from The Daily Caller reports. These citadels of statism will need an influx of college kids, not only to indoctrinate but to populate. Like vampires, they need new blood.
Non-Californians may view the exodus from the state as a sort of reverse migration that goes against historical trends, particularly those dramatized in old western movies. Yet and still, Berkeley claims that the golden state is still golden.
“California has had greater employment growth, both overall and in the private sector, than the average of the Republican-controlled states,” Berkeley’s Labor Center claimed. “Total employment grew by 16.9 percent in California from 2011 to 2016 compared to an average of 12.2 percent in Republican-controlled states.”
“In the private sector, California employment grew by 20.5 percent, while the average private-sector employment growth in Republican-controlled states was just 15.7 percent.” The states that Berkeley considers Republican controlled are: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Nevertheless, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), all of those states, with the exception of Michigan, have lower unemployment rates than California.
Because mere abortion-on-demand is too pro-life a position for them. “The California Senate approved a bill requiring the state’s public universities and colleges to offer abortion drugs at their health centers,” Grace Carr reported on The Daily Caller. “Senate Bill 320, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Connie Leyva, requires the state’s community colleges and public universities to provide women with abortion pills for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy so that they don’t have to travel to get the pills.”
“The bill is critical, Leyva told ABC News, because women in college should have the same access to reproductive health care as other women.”
Because the Ninth Circuit is still fighting reality.”A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in favor of 21 children and young adults suing the U.S. government for not doing enough to protect their constitutional right to a stable climate,” Michael Batasch writes in The Daily Caller. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges refused to grant mandamus relief and block the U.S. District Court in Oregon from hearing the suit, which was originally filed by the environmental group Our Children’s Trust in 2015.”
“A federal judge in Oregon ruled in 2016 the 21 youngsters had standing to sue. President Donald Trump’s administration and oil and gas groups appealed the decision in June 2017.”
A California high schoolteacher was fired due to anti-military comments he gave in a classroom lecture, upsetting parents, students and school district board members. Gregory Salcido was teaching history at El Rancho High School, located in the Los Angeles area, until he was placed on unpaid leave pending an investigation.
A student recorded one of his anti-military rants during a lecture and it led to the El Rancho Unified School District’s move to fire Salcido. Salcido is also a city council member and was asked to resign, which request he refused.
Photo by euthman 
They may not know the Bill of Rights, but students are being asked to broaden their base of knowledge in ways never before imagined, at least by most taxpayers. “This week the Illinois Senate voted to require public schools to teach LGBT history,” Brenda Iaservoli reported in Education Week on May 4, 2018. “The bill aims to ensure that history classes in public schools include lessons on ‘the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the history of this country and this state.'”
“Regional superintendents would be required to ensure the rule is enforced. If the bill is made into law, Illinois would become just the second state to require public schools to teach LGBT history. In 2012, California became the first with passage of the Fair Education Act. Last week, Massachusetts announced a new LGBT curriculum that will be released in the summer. The Massachusetts curriculum, however, is not required.”
“If California is any indicator, a law requiring LGBT-inclusive teaching doesn’t necessarily ensure the lessons will be delivered to classrooms right away. California’s mandate has been on the books for six years now, yet it took until late last year before the state approved K-8 textbooks that include discussion of LGBT individuals.”
And maybe school boards as well, thanks to an “urgency statute signed into law by outgoing California Governor Jerry Brown. “Existing law specifies the civil executive officers of the state,” according to the law. “Existing law provides that a person is incapable of holding a civil office if, at the time of his or her election or appointment, he or she is not 18 years of age and a citizen of the state.”
“This bill would authorize any pupil attending a California public secondary school who is under the age of 18 years to serve on any board or commission that includes members who are pupils or minors and is established under specified portions of the Education Code that relate to public elementary and secondary education and that includes members who are pupils or minors.”
As well, “Existing law authorizes any student, including a person without lawful immigration status, or a person who is exempt from paying nonresident tuition pursuant to a specified statute to serve in any capacity in student government at the California State University or the California Community Colleges, as prescribed,” according to the new law. “This bill would authorize any student attending a campus of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, or an independent institution of higher education, as defined, who qualifies for exemption from paying nonresident tuition pursuant to a specified statute to serve on any board or commission established pursuant to the portion of the Education Code relating to higher education and that includes members who are students.”
California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have mandated abortion pills be provided by California state universities, which handed the pro-life movement a victory. The governor said that some of its provisions were onerous, such as the average distance between campuses and an abortion provider were between five to seven miles, which in his opinion were not a large burden for students.
It barely comes up. “Parents of color want California’s next governor to place a higher priority on improving public schools, a new poll finds,” Laura Greanias writes in The LA School Report. “But as the two gubernatorial candidates held their first and perhaps only debate Monday, education barely came up.”
“Republican businessman John Cox three times mentioned that the state’s schools are failing children, but there was no follow-up discussion. Gavin Newsom, Democrat and lieutenant governor, brought up schools only as part of his defense of sanctuary cities, which he said offer protections that make parents ‘more likely to get their child an education and drop them off at school’ and to get immunizations such as for the flu.”
Ironically, Cox may be more in tune with concerns of the “Parents of color” Greanias references but will he follow up? Given the history of Republican campaigns, that might be a long shot bet.
The California state university system faced complaints remarkably similar to the ones Harvard is facing now, and leveled by the same ethnic group. “Enter the California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209 on the November 1996 ballot: ‘The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting,'” K. Lloyd Billingsley of the Independent Institute writes. “Administrators and politicians attacked it in apocalyptic terms, but California voters approved it 54 to 46 percent.”
“The disaster the preference forces predicted never came about. As Thomas Sowell noted in Intellectuals and Race, declines in minority enrollment at UCLA and Berkeley have been offset by increases at other UC campuses. More important, the number of African-American and Hispanic students graduating from the UC system has gone up, including a 55 percent increase in those graduating in four years with a GPA of 3.5 or higher.”
“Proposition 209 did not mean the end of “affirmative action.” Universities could still help disadvantaged students on an economic basis, but they could not discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity, as Asian students claim Harvard is doing.”
Another day, another dollar for California higher education. California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law several bills that affect the state’s higher education system. But, none of the bills resolved the underlying problem of higher education: its growing expenses and high cost for students and their parents.
Newsom signed into law several bills, one of which was Assembly Bill 943. That specific bill, according to Inside Higher Ed, opened “up a large pot of state funds to be used for emergency student aid.” Now, community colleges can use funding from the state’s Community Colleges Student Equity and Achievement Program to fund emergency student financial assistance.
According to the bill, there is no cap on how much money each college could use for emergency funds, yet it requires colleges to outline so-called “student equity plans” to include plans for emergency funds.
A Democratic state legislator wrote the bill, which passed by a 40-0 vote in the state senate, and the bill was cosponsored by multiple higher education and teacher’s union interests, such as the California Federation of Teachers, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, City College of San Francisco Faculty Union, Los Rios College Federation of Teachers and Scholarship America.
Admittedly, the fiscal impact is significant because the current equity and achievement program has $472 million in funding. It is supposed to be directed to tutoring and peer-mentoring programs. Now, the $472 million in funds can be used for students’ emergency assistance in housing, food assistance, textbook grants, and transportation assistance. These cases must be defined as unforeseen challenges that puts a student’s academic progress at risk.
Ironically, the sponsor of the bill, state assemblyman David Chiu, cited a report that low-income students in California could not afford college costs. Instead of attacking the problem directly, Chiu’s bill keeps the status quo in higher education intact, while offering some financial relief in case of emergencies.
If Chiu and the state of California were concerned about the rising cost of higher education, they would focus on the salaries of administrators and faculty members, or in other words, bureaucratic largesse, in addition to evaluating the viability and pragmatism of college courses and offerings, federal and state subsidies, and other culprits of rising tuition costs.
For progressive causes, many activists look to the state of California to see how to further implement progressive reforms or policies on a statewide level. It has yet to disappoint liberals and progressives, especially with the recent bill signed into law by California’s governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat.
Newsom signed a bill into law that required California’s community colleges and the state university system, known as the California State University system, to create a position at their higher education institutions to help Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) students on their campuses. The position would be called a “Dreamer Resource Liaison,” referring to the DACA recipients’ nickname, “Dreamers.”
The nickname originated from a proposed act in Congress which aimed to legalize DACA recipients.
Despite the intentions of the new law, colleges pointed out that the law will require more funding for the proposed liaison positions. The vice-chancellor of government relations for the California community colleges, Laura Metune, said the colleges do not have the funding necessary to create the positions and estimated it could cost at least $2.9 million to implement.
Currently, nineteen community colleges out of one hundred fifteen total colleges meet the requirement, meaning that the remaining ninety-six colleges in the community college system will have to comply with the new law by the 2020-2021 academic year. Regarding four-year institutions, the University of California system will not have issues as they already have liaisons and resource centers for DACA recipients, but four colleges in the California State University system will need to comply with the new law.
California is a sterling example of a state where American taxpayers fund positions or programs that do not directly benefit the taxpayer. DACA recipients are legal immigrants to the United States, although their fate is in limbo in the courts, the state of California appeared to give preference to immigrants over American residents and citizens.
California, and other left-leaning states, signaled its willingness to essentially subsidize education for immigrants who fall under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) category from the Obama administration years. California’s state legislature passed a bill which would increase DACA recipients’ access to government loans and grants.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed the bill into law. SB 354 will “expand DREAM loan eligibility” to students enrolled in coursework that will lead to a professional graduate degree. The changes due to the signed bill will also cover teaching credentials.
The guidelines for the loan include a minimum amount of $4,000, a maximum amount of $20,000, and that recipients have to be at least half-time students at any University of California or California State University campus. Additionally, the applicants must have a valid state DREAM Act application on file and meet certain academic standards during the duration of the loan. Repayment of the loan would take about ten years and would start after a six-month grace period after the student graduates or does not maintain half-time enrollment at the specific state universities.
The bill’s text did not indicate how much this would cost California taxpayers, who already shoulder many taxes. California is one of the more heavily-taxed states, due to its significant population, public services, and other similar factors. Recent data demonstrated that Californians, in addition to businesses and corporations, are relocating their homes and offices to neighboring states to escape the state’s onerous tax environment.
Not so long ago, everyone wanted to live in California. The temperate climate,
the beaches, the Rose Parade, Hollywood —– the mystique attracted millions to the state over the years. Today, it’s a far different story. Chances are if you talk to ten residents of the Golden State, four or five of them might tell you they’d like to leave.
Frankly, it’s not hard to understand why.
The inconsistent lockdown regulations are continuing to impact restaurants across California. Restaurant owners and employees are not only concerned about Covid-19, but also about their future employment. Los Angeles has banned all types of in-person dining, even if customers are social distancing, wearing masks and eating outside. There is little to no evidence that suggests outdoor dining has been a main contributor to California’s increase in Covid cases.
Restaurant owners rely on in-person dining to sustain their business. The economic impact on communities is drastic. Thousands of employees are struggling to make ends meet. Although, Los Angeles is fueled by wealth, the lower/middle class restaurant employees are the ones who are most impacted by the mandate. As large fast-food corporations benefit from the mandates, local non-chain restaurants are struggling drastically.
Although Gov. Gavin Newsom implemented these regulations, he was seen eating indoors at a restaurant, just hours after he established the new restaurant Covid guidelines. To make matters worse, Newsome also received millions of dollars in PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) loans throughout the nine business in which he has a stake.
PPP loans were created to help small business that needed to pay entry level employees who were struggling because of Covid. Newsom manipulated PPP loans to create another revenue stream for himself. In fact, Newsom’s winery received $918,720 in PPP loans to distributed among its 14 employees. The average California small business loan for an establishment of 14 employees was roughly 128,000. For perspective, the only other winery that received close to the same amount as Newsom’s is Oak Knoll Farming Corp, which retained 79 employees.
Lastly, as the regulations and taxes continue to add up, more and more people are fleeing California. Arizona and Nevada have seen an incredible increase of first-time homebuyers in their respected states. This has caused housing prices to go through the roof for locals who have been living there for years. Large corporations are also fleeing California. Business mogul Elon Musk moved Tesla production from California to Texas to escape the incredibly high regulations. Elon Musk is just one of a few businessmen who are making the transition from California to more open states. With the current conditions, the economic future of California is headed toward a steep downfall.
John Whitmore is an intern at Accuracy in Academia.
Asian-American parents experienced woke and left-wing indoctrination in America’s schools in Cupertino, California, a wealthy Silicon Valley community in northern California. At R.I. Meyerholz Elementary School, a third-grade teacher began a math class with a lesson on so-called “social identities,” according to the City Journal.
The lesson then devolved into students forced to create an “identity map,” which listed their race, gender, class, religion, and other societal characteristics. The teacher then told the students that they lived in an unfair and “dominant culture” of “white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied, Christian, English speaker[s]” who hold power and do their best to “stay in power.”
However, the lesson did not end with those allegations. The teacher used the ‘This Book is Antiracist” book to teach students about social identities and white privilege. One particular reading claimed, “a white, cisgender man, who is able-bodied, heterosexual, considered handsome and speaks English has more privilege than a Black transgender woman.”
Afterwards, the teacher told the students to dissect and deconstruct their “intersectional identities” and map out their identities according to the hierarchy of privilege and power. The students had to write short essays about how their identities held power and privilege, enough to fill “at least one page of writing.” There was an example shared about transgenderism and nonbinary sexuality, according to the report.
Does that lesson sound inappropriate for an elementary school classroom?
Yes, it was extremely inappropriate because education should be non-partisan, should focus on the basics such as writing, reading, and arithmetic, and should avoid indoctrination from any political ideology.
But parents did not take this intrusion into education lightly. Several parents banded together, met with the principal, and the “intersectionality” curriculum was suspended. Jenn Lashier, the principal, said that the curriculum was not a formal part of the education curriculum, but a “process of daily learning facilitated by a certified teacher,” jargon for indoctrination program from left-wing radicals hell-bent on social engineering.
The irony was that Meyerholz Elementary School is 94 percent nonwhite, with the majority of families from Asian-American backgrounds. The school serves a wealthy city and where the majority of residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher. It is an example of the American Dream, but not white privilege, intersectionality, and other left-wing buzzwords.
One parent said that this tragic attempt at critical race theory in an elementary school math class was eerily similar to the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The rhetoric divided society between “the oppressor and the oppressed, and since these identities are inborn characteristics people cannot change, the only way to change it is via violent revolution.” The parent remarked, “The outcome is the family will be ripped apart; husband hates wife, children hate parents. I think it is already happening here.”
Will critical race theory and other left-wing indoctrination efforts meet a stiff resistance among other Asian-American parents?
Time will tell, but Asian-American families have mobilized in recent years to stop boneheaded policy decisions, halting an affirmative action initiative in Washington state in 2019 and another in California in 2020.
Last week, California Governor Gavin Newsom and state Democrats agreed on a $2 billion legislative package to incentivize schools to reopen in districts with a low number of coronavirus cases. The agreement allowed concerned parents to breathe a sigh of relief, since they were finally able to see a light at the end of the tunnel concerning the prospect of getting their children back in the classroom. However, the agreement fell short of a mandate with the terms leaving plans vulnerable to the political whims of local officials and the collective bargaining tactics of teachers’ unions.
Immediately following the governor’s announcement, the United Teachers of Los Angeles came out in opposition to the agreement, shutting down parents’ hopes of a return to normalcy anytime soon.
In a press conference on Monday, UTLA President Cecily Myart-Cruz refused to “accept an arbitrary start date” and accused lawmakers of “propagating systematic racism” by striking the deal. Myart-Cruz asserted that offering financial incentives to districts that offer in-person learning would divert critical resources away from minority communities, where people are “dying at three times the rate of white residents.” The union president’s fears were echoed by the vice president of the La Mesa-Spring Valley Board of Education, who became irritated during a public school board meeting when members demanded a vote to establish a date to return to in-person learning.
After demanding to know the “language group” of the students who wished to return to school, Charda Bell-Fontenot chided the groups for their actions, stating, “That seems like a very white supremacist ideology, to force people to comply with and conform, just letting you know. Privilege, check it you guys.” If Democrat lawmakers and activists truly sought to help minority communities, they would move away from the virtual education system, which favors children whose families can afford technology and tutors to augment the reduced quality of education.
A study from the Ohio public schools illustrates the disproportionate effects of an online education. In the poverty-ridden suburbs of Ohio, chronic absenteeism, defined by the Department of Education as missing 10% or more of a school year, jumped by 18 percentage points in the African American community, up from 29% two years ago to 47% this year.
In comparison, chronic absenteeism among white students rose by only 8 points during the same time period. Furthermore, a report from the NWEA suggests that not only are white students outperforming minority students on assessments, but they are showing up for virtual school much more often. These alarming trends should reveal the dire consequences that accompany the politicization of our children’s development.
Case counts in California have stabilized and most of the state’s counties fall below 10 new cases per 100,000. Under the $2 billion agreement, districts with 7 or fewer cases per 100,000 would be required to offer in-person instruction to all elementary school students and at least one grade of middle school. The faster that students are allowed back in classrooms, the sooner that teachers can address the issues of those who have fallen behind. Therefore, officials should be careful in characterizing supporters of reopening as “white supremacist,” since they are actually attempting to save the futures of minority children.
