The Deal is OFF

The Governor has reneged on his “Deal” with the education community to limit the cut in the Proposition 98 guarantee to no more than $2 billion for 2004-05. His January proposal, rather than boosting current-year funding by $1.1 billion, as required under the “Deal,” appropriates no additional support. The Department of Finance projects that current-year revenues will exceed the 2004 Budget Act amount by almost $1 billion, which in turn would boost the minimum guarantee. Instead, the Administration proposes to disregard the “Deal” and leave current-year funding unchanged.This proposal has a compounding effect on the guarantee because it suppresses the Proposition 98 base for purposes of determining the minimum funding level for 2005-06. Thus, the two-year impact on this proposal is to deny schools and community colleges $2.2 billion.

This proposal is particularly troublesome because the state’s economic condition has improved since last July when the 2004 Budget Act was signed. Revenues are up almost $1 billion, according to the Governor’s Budget. Unfortunately, unrealized assumptions regarding punitive damage award collections and unidentified savings, coupled with higher caseload growth in some state programs, consumes the added revenues. Thus, the state’s current-year ending balance drops by $254 million, according to the revised current-year Budget.

The Administration bears responsibility for proposing the one-time solutions and the uncertain savings proposals that have unraveled since the 2004 Budget Act was signed. Factors beyond the Governor’s control cannot be blamed for his abandonment of the “Deal.”

When interviewed by Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee, the Governor was asked what, if any thing, he had learned from the experience of making a deal with the education community. His answer: Always leave yourself an out. He further stated, �I think you learn to just always make it clear that things can change, and that changes, then, the deal.� Shortly after releasing his January Budget proposal, the Governor stated that the state�s budget mess was the result of politicians promising people more than the state could afford to deliver. According to Mr. Weintraub, �Now he knows firsthand just how easy it is to fall into that trap.�

The Governor�s �Reform� Agenda

The Governor has indicated his intent to pursue several major governmental reforms. These include redistricting, government pensions, the budget process, and education. Following is a summary of the education reforms:

Proposition 98 Amendments�The Governor�s Budget details several �reforms� for Proposition 98 that would require amendments to the State Constitution. These include (1) elimination of suspension of the guarantee, (2) elimination of the Maintenance Factor, which ensures that long-term funding reaches the Test 2 level, (3) subjecting education funding to across-the-board mid-year cuts imposed by the State Controller, along with other state programs, if the state spending plan falls out of balance, and (4) prohibiting borrowing from special funds and Proposition 98. Note that eliminating the Proposition 98 suspension as a legislative option would be an irrelevant change if this funding is subject to mid-year cuts.

Pension Changes�The Budget proposes to cut funding for State Teachers� Retirement System (STRS) payments for teachers� pensions by $469 million. This reduction would require a dollar-for-dollar backfill by district employers, which translates into an approximately $40 million general fund reduction for community colleges. If this proposal is adopted, the STRS employer contribution rate would increase from 8.25% to 10.25% in 2005-06, unless employees agree to share in the cost. Second, the Governor has indicated his intent to pursue a constitutional amendment to eliminate the defined benefit plan for all new public employees, which would include K-14 school district employees.

Pay For Performance�This proposal does not include community college faculty at this time. The Governor is seeking a constitutional amendment that would require employment decisions for teachers to be based on the teacher�s performance and would prohibit the use of seniority in those decisions.

Timeline�The Governor has called a special session of the Legislature to consider these and other proposals, giving the Legislature eight weeks to act. If adopted by the deadline, the measures could come before state voters in a special election as early as July 2005. If the Legislature rejects these proposals, they could be included in a November 2005 special election ballot if they qualify via the initiative process.

Proposition 98 Funding for 2005-06

Proposition 98 funding for 2005-06 is based on current-year funding, which is lower than what should be provided according to the �Deal.� First, the Governor�s Budget does not appropriate the $302 million set aside in the Proposition 98 reserve, which was related to higher revenues in the final version of the 2004 Budget Act. Second, by reneging on the �Deal,� the Administration is denying K-14 education additional current-year support that follows from the boost in state revenue collections, which is estimated to be about $800 million. These two components would add $1.1 billion to the current-year funding level and increase the base for purposes of determining funding in 2005-06. The failure to provide these additional revenues denies K-14 education $2.2 billion combined over two years.

The Administration is of the view that a two-thirds vote of the Legislature is not required to implement this portion of its January Budget Proposal, arguing that the current-year suspension established the lower funding base for purposes of determining the 2005-06 level. There is, however, a competing view that the current year suspension applies only to the Test 2 calculation (the year-to-year growth per student in Proposition 98 equals the year-to-year growth in California�s personal income) and does not apply to other provisions that determine the 2004-05 minimum funding level. If this competing view prevails, the Legislature will once again have to vote to approve the suspension of the guarantee for 2004-05, or education will be due additional funding.

According to the Administration�s proposal, Proposition 98 funding will increase 6.1% in 2005-06, based on an inflation adjustment of 4.5% and statewide ADA growth of 0.79%. The Governor�s Budget also includes $400 million toward a Maintenance Factor payment in the budget year. In total, the Budget provides $2.9 billion in additional Proposition 98 funds in 2005-06, bringing the guarantee to $50 billion. Community colleges will receive approximately $5.1 billion in Proposition 98 revenues. Thus, the community college�s share of Proposition 98 revenues for 2005-06 will be 10.35%.

Legislative Analyst Critiques Governor�s Budget

On January 12, 2005, the Legislative Analyst�s Office (LAO) issued its initial review of the Governor�s Budget. While the Analyst offered that the Budget was a good starting point for negotiations, the proposal �falls well short of fully addressing the state�s ongoing projected fiscal imbalances.� Perhaps more importantly, the Analyst criticized the Governor�s reform proposals because they would increase the share of the State Budget that would be on �cruise control,� and would constrain policymakers� choices in setting budget priorities.

The LAO�s report highlighted the cuts to education, noting that the Administration�s solution to the budget gap relies nearly entirely on expenditure reductions �targeted on relatively few major areas�namely K-14 education, transportation, and social services.� The Analyst concludes that the Governor�s Budget leaves health, criminal justice, and resources programs largely unaffected, with higher education receiving a funding increase.

We would note that the Governor�s Budget proposes to borrow from transportation funds, with repayment occurring over 15 years, while the K-12 cut�that is, the failure to honor the agreement to limit the current-year Proposition 98 reduction to no more than $2 billion�would not be repaid. Like the grant cuts and cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) suspensions for several social services programs, the broken Proposition 98 promise would be a permanent loss of funding.

The Analyst is in general agreement with the Administration�s economic and revenue forecast, but acknowledges that budget projections are slightly more optimistic than the LAO�s projections issued in November 2004.

The Analyst concluded that about half of the Administration�s proposed budget solutions were ongoing and that even if the entire Governor�s Budget were adopted without amendment, a $5 billion budget gap would re-emerge in 2006-07. The LAO identifies roughly $1.4 billion in unreliable budget savings. The most risky proposals include reliance on a $765 million pension obligation bond, which is currently facing a court challenge; $408 million in state employee compensation savings that must be negotiated with the bargaining units; and $250 million in assumed savings from unallocated reductions and procurement reforms.

The LAO�s strongest criticism was levied at the Governor�s Proposition 98 proposals and the across-the-board cuts. The report indicated that these two proposals together �raise serious concerns.� First, the Analyst warns that the proposals would dramatically reduce the ability of the Legislature to establish budget priorities, particularly during revenue downturns. Second, the proposals would diminish the Legislature�s ability to appropriate funds and craft budgets. Under the plan, the Governor, with no input from the Legislature, would have the authority to determine when the budget was out of balance and thus subject state programs to across-the-board cuts. The full report can be accessed at www.lao.ca.gov.

Commentary on the Governor�s Proposed Budget

Discussion of this year�s Governor�s Budget proposals is conducted in an atmosphere very different than that of just a year ago. Last year, we could literally feel the energy emerging from not only the new Governor, but from the people around him and from the citizens of California as a whole. A new age was on the horizon; the state�s first recall had given birth to a new champion of the people. And the education community was eager to do its part in supporting the hopes of a new day for California�s children.

But, only a year later, we find that the new day looks a lot like the old day. The confluence of good politics and bad economics has once again proven that bad economics usually wins out. The unexpectedly positive economic environment has produced higher-than-forecast revenues, but the forecast for growth in expenditures is even higher. And, sadly, the Governor finds that the gap between ongoing revenues and expenditures looms as large as ever.

Promises Made, Promises Broken

Last year, amid criticism from both inside and outside, the education community took a risk. The risk was a �guaranteed� limit on loss of its Proposition 98 entitlement versus an all-or-nothing game to either avoid any reduction to Proposition 98 or risk a freefall suspension. The choice was for an agreement with a guaranteed loss of exactly $2 billion per year for the next several years, but a corresponding guarantee that all future growth in Proposition 98 entitlements would be paid to education. The education community accepted the Governor�s handshake and took the leap of faith.

The terms of the agreement were firmly anchored in state law by a trailer bill to the 2004 State Budget Act. Cities and counties also made a deal to protect themselves in future years, but they insisted on the even higher level of protection afforded by a statewide initiative requiring the people to speak in favor of protection for cities and counties. Education had no such plebiscite and, as a result, relied on the bond of faith and statute to protect its interests. Education has, of course, such a constitutional protection, also invoked by the voters, but this protection�Proposition 98�is 16 years old and is now under attack.

We now find that even though the economics are better than forecast for the state, the Governor feels he must back away from his commitment to education. And the Governor�s proposals go much further than simply denying the full measure of growth in funding that the agreement would have provided; his proposals cut even deeper into the funding currently available for education. Forcing school districts to pay an increased portion of State Teachers� Retirement System (STRS) retirement costs, which have traditionally been borne by the state, is a budget cut to K-14 and a revenue source for the rest of the state.

Long-Term Budget Reform

The Governor�s call for long-term reform of California�s budget process, weakening of the Proposition 98 guarantee, and shifting of power from the legislative to the executive branch of government is a characteristic of his budget. We see these proposals serving as �junk food for the masses� as they scream for accountability from others at the very time that the Executive Branch is stepping back from accountability for its own guarantees. After all, the Governor of California has a line-item veto authority. Perhaps the idea is to focus attention on the failings of others to distract attention from the exceedingly vulnerable position in which the Administration finds itself.

Proposition 98 Impacts

The third characteristic in the budget centers on the long-term impact of the Governor�s proposals to increase the amount cut from education. Over the long term, even the agreement�s $2 billion dollar agreed-to reduction to the baseline would not be fully restored for perhaps seven years and represent a total loss of perhaps $11 billion or more. That loss is never paid back; only the base is restored for future years. The even deeper cuts proposed now, and the loss of restoration rights to the maintenance factor that the Governor has also proposed, ensure that Proposition 98 will never provide the same measure of protection that it has in the past.

Operational Impacts

The unwelcome specter of yet another year of difficult collective bargaining negotiations also looms large. The continued rising cost of health benefits, the shift in retirement costs from the state to K-14 districts, will prevent many districts from being able to provide the increased salaries that so many of our dedicated staff members so richly deserve. The attractiveness of education as a place where dedicated service is appreciated is not enhanced by the local battles that will be fought in the competition for resources.

Equity for Our Students

California was once lauded as providing the best community colleges in the nation. For many of us who benefited from that level of effort, providing the same level of support to our own students has proven to be the impossible dream. Our students are now receiving a commitment from us that virtually guarantees that they will not have the opportunities provided by other affluent states. And yes, California is indeed an affluent state; we have a problem with government and its ability to manage and allocate resources, but evidence of affluence abounds�except in our schools.

And this budget ensures that our students will fall further into the abyss. As other states regularly increase education spending by 4%, 5%, or 6% per year, we feel fortunate to be able to occasionally provide a cost-of-living adjustment that exceeds the increase in the Consumer Price Index. By contrast, we have increased spending for education by a total of less than 5% per ADA/FTES over the past three years�from 2002-03 through 2004-05. Therein lies our fourth issue; equity for our students. Is it truly acceptable to have revenue per student for California�s community colleges funded at the bottom for all the segments of public education?

The Trust Issue

All of us in leadership positions know that our most precious asset is the trust others place in us. The erosion of trust means that progress in all other endeavors will be diminished, if not eliminated altogether. And right now, there is a loss of trust between the education community and the Administration. Before any progress can be made on the real issues that we all care so much about, the trust issue must be faced, resolved, and put aside.

Our opinions are our own and are not always embraced by all, but we think that by carefully evaluating our ideas and supplementing your own thoughts with ours, you will be able to maximize your contributions to the communities you serve.

Legislative Committee Assignments Announced

The Senate and Assembly legislative leadership recently announced committee assignments for the 2005-06 legislative session. Below is a roster containing key committees that will take action on bills affecting K-14 education.

Assembly Higher Education Committee (7 members) Meets the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month at 1:30 p.m., Room 437

Chair Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge), Room 4112, (916) 319-2044

Vice Chair Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City), Room 4164, (916) 319-2004

Member Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), Room 2117, (916) 319-2047
Member Shirley Horton (D-Inglewood), Room 2174, (916) 319-2078
Member Barbara Matthews (D-Tracy), Room 5155, (916) 319-2017
Member Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), Room 5144, (916) 319-2035
Member Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City), Room 4139, (916) 319-2021

Assembly Appropriations Committee (18 members) Meets at 9:00 a.m. every Wednesday, Room 4202

Chair Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), Room 2114, (916) 319-2049
Vice Chair Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster), Room 6031, (916) 319-2036
Member Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), Room 2117, (916) 319-2047
Member Patty Berg (D-Eureka), Room 4146, (916) 319-2001
Member Ron Calderon (D-Montebello), Room 4016, (916) 319-2058
Member Bill Emmerson (R-Rancho Cucamonga), Room 3149, (916) 319-2063
Member Mike Gordon (D-El Segundo), Room 2137, (916) 319-2053
Member Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta), Room 4158, (916) 319-2066
Member Johan Klehs (D-San Leandro), Room 5150, (916) 319-2018
Member Betty Karnette (D-Long Beach), Room 2176, (916) 319-2054
Member Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), Room 3146, (916) 319-2013
Member Alan Nakanishi (R-Lodi), Room 5175, (916) 319-2010
Member Joe Nation (D-San Rafael), Room 5119, (916) 319-2006
Member Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach), Room 2148, (916) 319-2055
Member Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles), Room 3152, (916) 319-2048
Member Lori Saldana (D-San Diego), Room 3132, (916) 319-2076
Member Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Niguel), Room 4116 (916) 319-2073
Member LelandYee (D-San Francisco), Room 3173, (916) 319-2012

Assembly Budget Committee (25 members) Meets on Wednesdays, Time and Location to Be Announced

Chair John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), Room 6026, (916) 319-2027
Vice Chair Rick Keene (R-Chico) Room 6027, (916) 319-2003
Member Juan Arambula (D-Fresno), Room 6011, (916) 319-2031
Member John Benoit (R-Riverside), Room 4144, (916) 319-2064
Member Rudy Bermudez (R-Norwalk), Room 5135, (916) 319-2056
Member Sam Blakeslee (R-Santa Monica) Room 5126, (916) 319-2033
Member Wilma Chan (D-Oakland), Room 6005, (916) 319-2016
Member Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), Room 4117, (916) 319-2025
Member Joe Coto (D-San Jose), Room 2170, (916) 319-2023
Member Lynn Daucher (R-Brea), Room 2158, (916) 319-2072
Member Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine), Room 4102, (916) 319-2070
Member Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate), Room 4162, (916) 319-2050
Member Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton), Room 3123, (916) 319-2052
Member Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), Room 6025, (916) 219-2007
Member Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) Room 2003, (916) 319-2045
Member Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), Room 4126, (916) 319-2014
Member Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar), Room 5164, (916) 319-2060
Member Cindy Montanez (D-San Fernando), Room 3013, (916) 319-2039
Member Gene Mullin (D-So. San Francisco), Room 2136, (916) 319-2019
Member Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), Room 5144 (916) 319-2035
Member Nicole Parra (D-Hanford), Room 4005, (916) 319-2030
Member Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), Room 3120, (916) 319-2041
Member George Plescia (R-La Jolla), Room 3098, (916) 319-2075
Member Michael Villines (R-Fresno), Room 4153, (916) 319-2029
Member Lois Wolk (D-Davis), Room 6012 (916) 319-2008

Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2 on Education Finance (6 members) Meets every Wednesday, 4:00 p.m. Room 126

Chair Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton), Room 3123, (916) 319-2052
Member Wilma Chan (D-Oakland), Room 6005, (916) 319-2016
Member Joe Coto (D-San Jose), Room 2170, (916) 319-2023
Member Lynn Daucher (R-Brea), Room 2158, (916) 319-2072
Member Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), Room 2003, (916) 319-2045
Member Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar), Room 5164, (916) 319-2060

Senate Education Committee (12 members) Schedule to be announced

Chair Jack Scott (D-Altadena), Room 2082, (916) 445-5976
Vice Chair Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Cruz), Room 4082 (916) 445-5843
Member Elaine Alquist (D-Santa Clara), Room 4088 (916) 445-9740
Member Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), Room 3048 (916) 445-6447
Member Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), Room 313 (916) 445-1418
Member Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), Room 4062, (916) 445-6747
Member Nell Soto (D-Pomona) Room 4074, (916) 445-6868
Member Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough), Room 2032, (916) 445-0503
Member Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch), Room 4032, (916) 445-6083
Member Jeff Denham (R-Merced), Room 3076, (916) 445-1392
Member Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga), Room 2048, (916) 445-3688
Member Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside), Room 4048, (916) 445-3731

Senate Appropriations (13 members) Schedule to be announced

Chair Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) Room 2059, (916) 445-1412
Vice Chair Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley), Room 2054 (916) 445-3353
Member Elaine Alquist (D-Santa Clara), Room 4088, (916) 445-9740
Member Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) Room 4040, (916) 445-5953
Member Martha Escutia (D-Norwalk), Room 5080, (916) 445-3090
Member Kevin Murray (D-San Diego), Room 5050, (916) 445-8800
Member Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento), Room 5114 (916) 445-7807
Member Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough), Room 2032, (916) 445-0503
Member Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), Room 5094, (916) 445-5405
Member Jim Battin (R-La Quinta), Room 3067, (916) 445-5581
Member Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga), Room 2048, (916) 445-3688
Member Chuck Poochigian (R-Fresno), Room 5087, (916) 445-9600

Senate Budget and Fiscal Review (17 members) Schedule to be announced

Chair Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata), Room 5035, (916) 445-3375
Vice Chair Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta), Room 5064, (916) 445-9781
Member Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), Room 4081 (916) 445-6767
Member Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana), Room 2080, (916) 445-5831
Member Christine Kehoe (D-Los Angeles), Room 3086, (916) 445-3952
Member Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), Room 5108, (916) 445-1353
Member Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), Room 3048 (916) 445-6447
Member Mike Machado (D-Linden), Room 5066, (916) 445-2407
Member Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), Room 313, (916) 445-1418
Member Jack Scott (D-Altadena), Room 2082, (916) 445-5976
Member Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), Room 4062, (916) 445-6747
Member Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch), Room 4032, (916) 445-6083
Member John Campbell (R-Irvine), Room 3056, (916) 445-4961
Member Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga), Room 2048, (916) 445-3688
Member Bob Margett (R-Arcadia), Room 3082, (916) 445-2848
Member Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), Room 3070, (916) 445-873
Member George Runner (R-Palmdale), Room 4066, (916) 445-6637

Senate Budget Subcommittee #1 on Education (3 members*) Schedule to be announced

Chair Jack Scott (D-Altadena), Room 2082, (916) 445-5976

*Members to be determined

District Accountability Framework Project

Assembly Bill 1417 (Chapter 581/2004) charged the Board of Governors (BOG) �to provide recommendations, based on information to be developed in a study to be conducted by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, to the Legislature and Governor regarding the design of a workable structure for the annual evaluation of district-level performance in meeting statewide educational outcome priorities.�

Apparently, to reinforce the Administration�s position regarding the adoption of accountability standards by the BOG, the Governor�s Budget set aside $31.4 million. According to the Governor�s January Budget, these funds are set aside for potential restoration to community college apportionments, pending the outcome of a district-specific accountability mechanism.

AB 1417 also specified that the Chancellor�s Office shall �consult with individuals with demonstrated expertise in higher education accountability and evaluation.� The legislation further instructed the Chancellor�s Office to consult with the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst�s Office on an ongoing basis during the conduct of the study. The study process shall also afford community organizations and interested parties and individuals with the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed recommendations before their consideration and adoption by the BOG.

The Chancellor�s Office has clarified that the process of creating the report is not a local process, and there is nothing local colleges or districts need to do at this time to satisfy AB 1417 requirements. The project, however, has an existing oversight committee consisting of CEO and Academic Senate representatives. The Chancellor�s Office, in concert with the Research and Planning Group of the California Community Colleges, is currently engaged in the creation of the report. The report will be made available for public comment once a draft set of metrics is produced some time in the next month. Chancellor Drummond will present the proposed accountability framework to the Consultation Council at its February 17, 2005 meeting.

The report will contain a proposal for district-level accountability reporting, as per the legislation. It does not officially bind the system into such a reporting framework until it is enacted in either legislation or budget act language. The BOG will act on the report at its March 7, 2005, meeting. It is due to the Legislature March 25, 2005.

Remember, this accountability framework was part of the deal with the Administration to support folding Partnership for Excellence funding into the System�s base.

Teachers Unions�The 800 Pound Gorillas of Public Education

The Wall Street Journal recently printed an article by Terry M. Moe titled, �No Teacher Left Behind.� Moe is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of political science at Stanford University. Since the collective bargaining process may consume more time and money than providing educational services to students, the following excerpts from Moe�s article may be of interest.

According to Moe, �teachers unions have more influence over the public schools than any other group in American society. They influence schools from the bottom up, through collective bargaining activities that shape virtually every aspect of school organization. Yet the American public is largely unaware of how influential they are�and how much they impede efforts to improve public schools.�

�The problem is not that the unions are somehow bad or ill-intentioned. They aren�t. The problem is that when they simply do what all organizations do�pursue their own interests�they are inevitably led to do things that are not in the best interest of students.�

Teachers� unions� behavior is driven by fundamental interests that have to do with the jobs, working conditions, and material well-being of teachers. When unions negotiate with school boards, these are the interests they pursue and not those of students who are supposed to be getting educated.

�The resulting contracts often run to more than 100 pages, and are filled with provisions for higher wages, fantastic health benefits and retirement packages, generous time off, total job security, teacher transfer and assignment rights, restrictions on how teachers can be evaluated, restrictions on non classroom duties, and countless other rules that shackle the discretion of administrators. These contracts make the schools costly to run, heavily bureaucratic, and extremely difficult for administrators to manage. They also ensure that even incompetent teachers are virtually impossible to remove from the classroom. The organization of schools, as a result, is not even remotely the kind of organization one would design if the best interests of children were the guiding criterion. Exactly the same can be said about the design of government education policy, which is tilted toward teacher interests through the union�s exercise of political power.�

Moe asserts that, �if we really want to improve schools, something has to be done about the teachers unions. The idea that an enlightened �reform unionism� will somehow emerge that voluntarily puts the interests of students first�an idea in vogue among union apologists�is nothing more than a pipe dream. The unions are what they are. They have fundamental, job- related interests that are very real, and are the raison d�etre of their organization. These interests drive their behavior, and this is not going to change. Ever.�

Moe sums up his article by declaring that if teachers unions won�t voluntarily give up their power, then it has to be taken away from them�through new laws that, among other things, drastically limit (or prohibit) collective bargaining in public education, link teachers� pay to their performance, make it easy to get rid of mediocre teachers, give administrators control over the assignment of teachers, and prohibit unions from spending a member�s dues on political activities unless that member gives explicit prior consent.

Moe�s article and the challenges contained there in are obviously controversial. Is there hope for change? Probably not in our lifetime.

�Arnold Bray

By the Way . . .

Student Fee Policy. The Assembly Committee on Higher Education is considering proposing legislation that would give the Board of Governors authority over setting community college fees, as done in the CSU and UC systems.

The committee�s proposal would include the following provisions: The community colleges and their students would be served much more effectively by (1) establishing a statewide fee level for all credit students, (2) adjusting this amount annually based upon increases in the Consumer Price Index, and (3) allowing each district to charge additional program fees to support local community college priorities. All student fee revenue should remain with the districts and not be used as an offset to the state appropriation. In addition, student financial aid should be available for all low-income students to ensure that the cost of attendance is not a barrier to enrolling in the colleges. Lastly, if there is an increase in student fees, notice should be provided to students at least six months prior to implementation.

AB 23 by the chair of the committee, Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge) has been introduced to reform community college funding priorities and could be amended to include a new student fee policy.