City College Shaken Up, Shaken Down

Wait, Barbara Lotito is "worried that the loss of current staff would precipitate a loss of expertise in communicating with the Latino community." So in addition to providing classes to non college students the role of SBCC is to communicate with people in the community that have not learned to speak english? And she wants to prolong their inability to communicate in the language of the country that they (probably) broke in to by teaching bilingual courses? Seriously, is there any reason that we are broke?
Gawd how I wish there was someone to tell me that I was a victim and needed special assistance and advocacy(not!) when I came to the U.S.
The fiscal policies outlined in the article should have been in place before we were broke and seem so common sense based that it is amazing that this is news at all.

Gaskin just has to obey the law, when "The State Legislature has mandated that the above courses be prioritized over “community service” courses" they mean academic transfer courses and vocational courses, and this essentially means younger students. I just hope the CE interests don't bring Gaskin down like they did Andrea Serban...
As CE instructor Gloria Arenson, honestly stated about CE in Santa Barbara — “We are so spoiled. …"
Those days are over.

My exact response when someone was complaining to me about the cuts to extension classes, "Now maybe you will appreciate what you had for all of those years".
Agree on the point about Gaskin and Serban; he's just following the law, leave the political crap out of things for now.

They might have some more cash if they weren't paying for 2 chancellors.

In part, Italiansurg is right. The college is afraid of bad press from the Latino community if they do anything that might be the least construed as racist. So the administration caters to the poorly run adult ed immigration office that SBCC funds with money (about a half million/year) that could be better utilized elsewhere. Anything that has the word bilingual is sheltered by the adult ed admin. But I do think helping immigrants to learn English is of benefit to all. I commend the people who come here from all over the world who are making the effort to learn the native language of their new country. I wish more of them would make that effort.

SBCC adult ed started out almost 100 years ago to teach the new Italian immigrants English and prepare them for US citizenship. Those two key state's interests at that time remain the core of SBCC's adult ed needs today. It's the law.

but adult ed courses will be relegated to that new entity called CLL and they'll have to eventually fend for themselves. Oblati you are commenting about the core of SBCC's adult ed needs, but these are being reduced for even deeper core needs of the SBCC community: vocational and transfers, basically, the young. This is the law.

And how is any of this a surprise? Anyone remember Andrea Durban? Run out of town by a newly elected and hardly competent BoD? Who said this was coming and proposed fixes - many similar to what is now being proposed? Morons.....

Former SBCC Superintendent Dr. Andreea Serban's proposal for adult ed was far less dramatic or punitive. Gradual transition to fee-based for non-enhanced non-credit classes, building up enhanced non-credit programs the state funded at a premium reimbursement rate, scholarships for students who could not pay the new fees, and keeping the non-credit division intact as part of the long-time SBCC college tradition and mission. Odd, isn't it?

odd, yeah...but a conspiracy theorist might say, well, some older politicos found an issue they could exploit, adult ed aficionados (wonderful people) flipped out and supported the new majority of SBCC's Board and now they got the school reprimanded for their intrusions, firing Serban, micro-managing administration...and, we're back to square one, Oblati, only Serban's proposal if viewed rationally would have been less awful than what we're getting now. Good luck getting state or SBCC funds for the CLL after an initial couple of years.
Ridiculous.
Still, SBCC'c core mission is reaching the younger, for transfers to UC and other 4-year colleges AND for vocational education, again, for the under-30s. These young people need skills and good jobs!

SBCC operating funds cannot be used for the Center for Life Long Learning. Trustees will have to dig further into college reserves to provide any CLL subsidies.

SBCC's core mission is slowly becoming an educational institution for international students; not local students. Even at full international student fees, it is cheaper for foreign countries to educate their students at SBCC than build sufficient colleges for them at home.

This growing number of international students will take their SBCC acquired skills and find good jobs in their own home countries ....competing directly with our own local students in the global marketplace.

Voters wanted change at SBCC. This is how they are getting it.

I agree the international student influx is a serious problem, and in their desperation for funds SBCC has welcomed them in disproportionate numbers. However, these foreign students add a great deal to the atmosphere at SBCC, they help us all learn active tolerance, and hopefully they also bring back wonderful stories about Calif./USA to their home countries. We need to ADD MONEY to the budget for all the community colleges in Calif., one of the jewels of our state. Support Prop. 30, and locally A and B (I know, these are for high schools).

Voters realized in the last election permanently approving local parcel taxes every time they expire, and adding new ones in every new election cycle is not the way to run our local school system.

Prop 30 money comes with too many strings already to be meaningful locally. More money has yet to cure any long-standing problems in California education. Just the opposite. More money allows the dysfunction to continue.

Local community college students are far better served having more semester-abroad scholarships funded for their participation, than bringing even more international students to our local campuses.

Our local, somewhat provincial students badly need to see the rest of the world first-hand, and learn what their non-US global competition is already doing in the wider world they will also inherit.

Voters will serve their local schools better turning down all additional tax proposals: No on A & B, Prop 30 and their progeny. Prop 98 is already a sufficient school funding guarantee.

eh, Oblati, "Our local, somewhat provincial students badly need" better student ratio, better classrooms, more teachers, more support in the schools,...NOT "to see the rest of the world" which is ludicrouys. You think like Mitt Romney that less funding = better schools...ridiculous!
You are unctuous and deceptive when you write "Voters will serve their local schools better" by turning down A, B, and 30.
Vote FOR Prop. 30, and taxes A and B!

We've already proven that more money and public employee union rules don't make for good schools either.

Voters turned down these on-going parcel taxes once last spring for the right reasons. They will turn them down again but in even greater numbers.

No parcel tax should ever be used to permanently fund local schools. This is not how they work. Voters are not stupid.

They passed the first time because voters thought the economic downturn was temporary and a one-time parcel tax was seen as a temporary fix.

Last time, voters learned parcels taxes are now expected to be passed as permanent budget fixes, and they got a whiff of pre-Prop 13 all over again.

No on permanent Parcel Taxes A, B and Prop 30.

actually they did not turn them down, they won by about 65% each I think....and they will get to the 66.7% in Nov.
Yes on A, B, and Prop. 30 if you care about children and learning.

Actually Dr Dan, voters did turn down the recent school parcel taxes. These parcel taxes failed to get their required super-majority. That is called "turning them down".

Caring about children and their future means living within one's means today. SB Schools are well-compensated under Prop 98 guarantees ($8000 per student - CalFacts)

Local schools can't expect voters to pay additional permanent parcel taxes, on top of the Prop 98 guarantee revenues schools are already receiving.

While there was sympathy for one-time parcel taxes, making parcel taxes permanent as this election requests is imprudent. Voters know this.

There needs to be pension, teacher senority and evaluation reform before I can support any more taxes.
I woul absolutely love to see our schools well funded and well preforming, but money without reform is not the answer.
At this point private schools and charter schools are the best answer.

New York State and many others spend on average above $15000 a year (NY = $19,000 per kid per year)...Oblati, your $8000 figure is correct and also pathetic. Not enough at all.
SB Schools certainly are NOT "well-compensated"! Ludicrous.
It's quite "prudent" to vote FOR A, B, and PROP. 30.
Private schools are not the answer, far too expensive for the vast majority of parents EVEN with some voucher monies.

What DrDan continues to ignore is that the state has plenty of revenue as we are one of the highest taxed states in the nation. We just choose to spend the money on other things besides education. Maybe the state should just get it's priorities straight rather than let the politicians try to blackmail the taxpayers into voting themselves another tax increase.

California's income tax rate is 10.55% on income over $1 million; there is such a blizzard on taxes...corporate taxes? property taxes...sales tax state and local, taxes on dividends... Botany, California is a wealthy state and can afford to put much more money into public education. But after Prop 13 we can't tap into property taxes so much. We do NOT have plenty of revenue, although we do choose to spend the money on other things. You seem to always change the subject: I am talking about increased funding for kids in our state, you immediately lurch into "the state has plenty of revenue as we are one of the highest taxed states in the nation. We just choose to spend the money on other things besides education." We aren't having a dialogue.
Vote YES on A and B, and also PROP 30: and, they will pass.

Reminds me of the college kid who spends all the school money his parents gave him on drugs and then calls home for more money to buy school books.
No , no and no on prop 30.

Prop 98 guarantees 50% of all state income taxes goes to schools.

If California increasingly becomes more business unfriendly, then state income taxes will continue to go down meaning less income for schools per the 50% tax revenue guarantee.

CalFacts: State pays $8000 per student for K-12. Permanent parcel taxes undermine Prop 13 protections so voters will not approve them as permanent additions to their property tax bills.

Dr Dan, you do need to find out what has been happening to that $8000 per student state funding for K-12. How much of it has been diverted away from the classroom.

First of all, the deal Brown negotiated with the public employees unions was a sweetheart deal for them.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-n...

Second, here is how California compares with other states in per capita revenues

California Sales Tax - Highest in the nation
California Gas Tax - Second Highest in the nation
California Income Tax - One of the most progressive and 5th highest in collections per person in the nation.
California Property Tax - Only 15th highest in the nation. (I guess Prop 13 puts us almost in the middle of the pack)

http://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-cl...

Third, Dan you seem to ignore the fact that we spend too much money in this state on just about everything but education. Are you not satisfied because we are only 15th highest in property tax revenue per person? We're in the top 5 in all other forms of taxation. Isn't that good enough? Let's take money from legislative aides, high speed rail, bloated pensions and make our education system better. Let's tell governor Brown what he can do with his tax increase.

CalFacts is a publication of the Legislative Analysts Office.

In 2011 CalFacts reports the following costs to the state per student:

K-12: $11,406 / student
CCC: $ 5,071 / student
CSU: $ 6,987 / student
UC: $11,885 / student

Should it cost the state as much to educate each K-12 student as it spends per UC student? ($11,000 plus per student)

K-12 is getting plenty of state money relative to all other segments of public education. How K-12 is spending this money is the voters biggest concern.

No on Parcel Taxes A and B and Prop 30 until we get better answers.

Anyone who thought Brown would actually stand up to the unions is a fool. California spends money in many ways other than the truly important. It's employees are too many, make too much money, and have unaffordably generous benefits. There are too many feelgood programs with too little measure of effectiveness. To vote to increase taxes whatever the apparently noble reason is to continue to support the profligate ways of this all-but-bankrupt state.

Straight from Ayn Rand, Mr. Locke, nice!

In Ayn Rand, Zuckerburg's IPO would have made money for the state tax coffers and California's looming bankruptcy would have been thrown a slender lifeline. Friend that.

" How much of it has been diverted away from the classroom."

Oblati (anonymous profile)
September 17, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.

That's the...uhm...million dollar question. There is an unspoken social rule that we must never question the motives of the education system. They always seem to have plenty of $$$ to pay their administrators, while holding the schools and our consciences hostage. Again...(bear with me) if the schools are so broke, why is it that we have all that money for the high speed rail? Yes, I know the vast majority of it comes from federal funds, but I also know that several billion will come from California funds.

OK, see your point Oblati, but I'm a child advocate first and don't wanna just analyze state monies distribution patterns blah blah blah and use that as an excuse for waiting before helping children; the current pressing issue is the pathetic education most kids in Calif are receiving...we need much more than Prop 30 and A & B to solve that... and yes, focus on 'how much has been diverted from the classroom' is very important indeed, but
'CHILDREN FIRST RIGHT NOW = YES on PROP 30 and A & B!

A is for Accountability
B is for a Board not beholden to employee unions
C is for Contract and Ed Code reform

BTW Dr Dan: run the numbers when you bash administrator salaries. Hourly rates are fairly similar to what teachers make. The catch is administrators work 12 months and teachers work 180 days so it appears administrators are disproportionately compensated.

The even greater irony is teacher unions have imposed the multitudes of Ed Code regulations administrators have to administer, or else get sued for non-compliance by those very same teacher unions. Joke's on us.

Dr. Dan, If you truly care about children first like all of us do, you will not saddle them with future debt. You will clean things up now because you are the adults in charge. You will stop kicking the can down the road for "the children" to inherit the liabilities for the choices you are refusing to face today.

Throwing money at a failed system is not "for the children". I don't know how you got the false assumption that continuing on an unsustainable path was for "the childrens" benefit.

One solution is taking collective bargaining away from local school boards and creating a state teacher and schools employee compensation schedule, leaving local boards to monitor only education quality, accountability and sensible data-driven innovation in response to local needs.

School boards need to be accountable first to the parents, the community and most importantly the students; not employee unions.

And you can't have good schools without being attractive places to work and retain the best employees, so this is not an either/or situation. Just a shift in the focus and power balance back to the students, and away from the employee unions.

The first step on this new path is to vote No on A and B and Prop 30. Throwing money on a failed system does not work and only delays what needs to be done.

We do business differently now. We don't foist future debt on "the children" and refuse to undertake necessary reforms for their benefit now. Stop pretending you are doing this for " the children" when you refuse to face the hard choices that need to be made today.

The first step on this new path is to vote YES on A and B and Prop 30.
Stop pretending you are doing this for schools and kids yourself, Oblati, you just don't want to pay the taxes, quit kidding yourself and us.