Governor-Elected Gavin Newsom has let it be known that he plans to use California’s large reserves to expand pre-K.
As we have learned in New York City these past few years, expanding pre-K is great, but it is far from enough.
The most pressing problem in California’s schools are:
1. Reducing class sizes in K-12
2. Increasing teachers’ salaries
3. A moratorium on charter schools, which take money away from public schools
4. Providing the counselors and support personnel that schools need
Governor-Elect Newsom should not forget that the billionaires spent huge sums of money funding former Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, who came in third.
And they spent millions more trying to defeat new State Superintendent Tony Thurmond and losing.
Put the money where the kids are.
Pre-K is nice but not enough.
Seeking to frame his new administration as one with a firm focus on closing the gap between children from affluent and poor families, Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom will propose spending some $1.8 billion on an array of programs designed to boost California’s enrollment in early education and child-care programs.
Newsom’s plan, which he hinted at in a Fresno event last month, will be a key element in the state budget proposal he submits to the Legislature shortly after taking office Monday, a source close to the governor-elect’s transition team said Tuesday.
The spending would boost programs designed to ensure children enter kindergarten prepared to learn, closing what some researchers have called the “readiness gap” that exists based on a family’s income. It would also phase in an expansion of prekindergarten, and offer money to help school districts that don’t have facilities for full-day kindergarten.
“The fact that he’s making significant investments with his opening budget is really exciting,” Ted Lempert, president of the Bay Area-based nonprofit Children Now, said Tuesday. “What’s exciting is the comprehensiveness of it, because it’s saying we’re going to focus on prenatal through age 5.”
A broad overview document reviewed by The Times shows that most of the outlay under the plan — $1.5 billion — would be a one-time expense in the budget year that begins July 1. Those dollars would be a single infusion of cash, an approach favored by Gov. Jerry Brown in recent years.
Most of the money would be spent on efforts to expand childcare services and kindergarten classes. By law, a governor must submit a full budget to the Legislature no later than Jan. 10. Lawmakers will spend the winter and spring reviewing the proposal and must send a final budget plan to Newsom by June 15.
The governor-elect will propose a $750-million boost to kindergarten funding, aimed at expanding facilities to allow full-day programs. A number of school districts offer only part-day programs, leaving many low-income families to skip enrolling their children due to kindergarten classes that end in the middle of the workday. The dollars would not count toward California’s three-decades-old education spending guarantee, Proposition 98, and therefore would not reduce planned spending on other education services.
Close behind in total cost is a budget proposal by Newsom to help train child-care workers and expand local facilities already subsidized by the state, as well as those serving parents who attend state colleges and universities. Together, those efforts could cost a total of $747 million, according to the document reviewed Tuesday.
An expansion of prekindergarten programs would be phased in over three years at a cost of $125 million in the first year. The multiyear rollout would, according to the budget overview, “ensure the system can plan for the increase in capacity.”
Lempert said the Newsom proposal is notable for trying to avoid battles in recent years that pitted prekindergarten and expanded child care against each other for additional taxpayer dollars…
Another $200 million of the proposal would be earmarked for programs that provide home visits to expectant parents from limited-income families and programs that provide healthcare screenings for young children. Some of the money would come from the state’s Medi-Cal program, and other money from federal matching dollars. Funding for the home visits program was provided in the budget Brown signed last summer, and the Newsom effort would build on that.
The incoming governor is likely to face considerable demands for additional spending, in part because the Legislature’s independent analysts believe continued strength in tax revenues could produce a cash reserve of some $29 billion over the next 18 months. Almost $15 billion of that amount could be in unrestricted reserves, the kind that can be spent on any number of government programs.…

Reducing class sizes in K-12
Providing the counselors and support personnel that schools need
A moratorium on charter schools, which take money away from public schools
Increasing teachers’ salaries
Better “optics”.
LikeLike
For those who missed it, here’s the archive of this morning’s KPCC Air Talk interview with UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl:
(it starts at about 15:35 )
https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2019/01/03/19293/
LikeLike
thank you
LikeLike
Two paragraphs from this L.A. Times article jumped off the computer screen:
L.A. TIMES:
“The incoming governor is likely to face considerable demands for additional spending, in part because the Legislature’s independent analysts believe continued strength in tax revenues could produce a cash reserve of some $29 billion over the next 18 months.
“Almost $15 billion of that amount could be in unrestricted reserves, the kind that can be spent on any number of government programs.”
$29 billion???!
Or even $15 billion???!!!
Sweet Jesus!
Send some of that to LAUSD, for God’s sake!
And do it fast!
Without the unions support — not just campaign money, but on-the-ground campaigning, phone banking, ferocious use of social media, etc. — Newsom could never have defeated the corp. ed. reform-ist Villaraigosa, for whom the privatizing billionaires both here in CA and outside CA pumped in tens of millions in their ultimately failed to defeat Newsom.
(The same goes for incoming State Ed. Sue. Tony Thurmond, in his victory over privatizer stooge Marshall Tuck.)
Thus, Newsom owes the students and teachers in Los Angeles (and to Oakland, and to the rest of the state, for that matter) and must deliver.
Newsom now has super-majorities in both the CA House (Assembly) and CA State Senate, plus a State Ed. Supe backing public schools, whose signature campaign promise was calling for increased funding for traditional public schools (and a moratorium, and not extra funding for charters.)
There is nothing stopping him now.
Hey Governor Newsom!!!
Propose, pass, & sign some emergency legislation in NOW!!!
Send some funding to LAUSD NOW!!!
And do it before next week’s start date of the LAUSD / UTLA strike —-
Thursday, January 10, 2019.
LikeLike
Neoliberal, cradle to grave data collection and silence on labor disputes. Not a good sign. Not a good start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sadly looking like MUCH of the incoming “change” candidate action
LikeLike
It’s a recurring theme, and has been for decades. Once the election ends, the rich pull the strings behind the curtain. Democrats “run from the left but govern from the right.” It’s beyond maddening. Well, at least Newsom isn’t fanatical Villaraigosa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
but so sad that all we have in our state these days is the ‘at least’ choice
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Beutner keeps illegally communicating with the LA Times instead of the UTLA bargaining unit. From the Democratic mayor, silence. From the Democratic governor-elect, silence.
LikeLike
Beutner spoke for a half hour yesterday on KPCC (L.A. radio)’s Air Talk with Larry Mantle, with much of what he said disputed by UTLA’s Alex Caputo-Pearl later in the day
(Beutner’s half hour wasfollowed by Beutner answering phone call-in questions):
https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2019/01/02/64040/interview-with-lausd-superintendent-austin-beutner/
This morning (Thurs., Jan, 3) UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl gets his half-hour turn on Air Talk to refute what Beutner said yesterday.
Alex’s appearance can be heard here:
https://www.scpr.org/listen_live
… and it plays soon at:
10 -10:30 am —– Pacific
11 – 11:30 am —– Mountain
12 -12:30 pm —– Central
1 – 1:30 pm ——- Eastern
The half hour following this will be the call-in’s and these can be quite riveting.
LikeLike
Here’s the latest from UTLA — pretty much what Alex is going to say (or, after the airing, what Alex will say) on AirTalk at 10 am this morning:
(today, Thurs,, Jan. 3, 9:30 am):
https://www.utla.net/news/utla-rejects-lausds-so-called-offer-calls-talks-monday
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
UTLA rejects LAUSD’s so-called offer, calls for talks on Monday
MEDIA NOTE: Tune in to KPCC’s “AirTalk” at 10 am tomorrow for Kyle Stokes’ interview with UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl.
https://www.scpr.org/listen_live
As you know, today Austin Beutner attempted another end-run around the formal bargaining process by talking to the media and sending a letter to our members. This is the behavior of a corporate down-sizer, breaking the rules to get his way.
See our press statement on that here:
https://www.utla.net/news/contrary-reports-utla-isnt-refusing-bargain-district*
Later in the day, about 15 minutes after we released a media statement calling out Beutner’s latest tactics, Rob Samples from LAUSD Labor Relations sent a response to our email of 12/31, which had asked Samples to clarify a confusing and unorthodox chart that he had sent a couple of days earlier. Today, Samples refused to answer our questions and insisted that the chart is an offer, with no further clarification.
The chart is not a formal offer. But, inasmuch as we want to be responsive, we reached back out to Samples tonight and rejected LAUSD’s so-called offer.
See the district’s chart, a chain of emails back and forth, and our response to Samples here:
Click to access Emails_LAUSD_UTLA.pdf
The so-called offer is basically the same as LAUSD has been putting forward for months, just dressed up slightly differently.
We additionally stated in tonight’s email to Samples that our bargaining team is available to meet on Monday if the district has a legitimate and clear offer for us to consider. We hope they do, as we would like to make progress on bargaining if possible.
We rejected the district’s most recent “offer” for several reasons:
.
.
1. Pay raise still contingent on healthcare rollback: Though unclear, it appears to still make the 3% salary increase in 2017-2018 and 3% in 2018-2019 contingent on cutting future members’ healthcare.
2. Section 1.5 not eliminated: Though unclear, it appears to maintain Section 1.5 of the contract, which allows the district to unilaterally raise class sizes.
3. Anemic movement on class size and more nurses, counselors, and librarians: Though unclear, if we pieced it together with other recent district communications (not something we want to do, but had no choice given Samples’ lack of response), it appears to offer only $30 million for class-size reduction, and additional counselors, nurses, librarians, etc. This is less than 2% of the almost $2 billion reserve. This would provide only one additional staff person (supposedly filling a need for class-size reduction AND health and human services staffing) at only 30% of district schools. Because the “offer” is so poorly written, it is unclear as to whether the district is maintaining that they would like to have this $30 million applied only to 10% of the 900 schools, which they had proposed on October 30. It is also unclear as to whether the district is maintaining its October 30 proposal to raise class sizes across the board.
4. No progress on other critical proposals: It does not address the rest of our comprehensive package of proposals built to improve learning conditions for students, to improve working conditions for educators, and to ensure the long-term stability of LAUSD as a civic institution for the common good.
.
,
Interpreting the district’s chart was made more difficult by the fact that, just today, LAUSD sent a press statement, a letter to our members, a letter to parents, and made statements on KPCC, all of which were inconsistent with each other. This is an unprofessional and misleading set-up to prevent us from arriving at substantive agreements that help our students. We expect more from the superintendent of the second-largest school district in the country.
We will keep you informed, and hope that LAUSD agrees to meet on Monday, and has a clear and legitimate offer for us to consider at that time. Stay united, stay informed, and stay focused on our goal: a deep reinvestment in educators and students to sustain public education in LA.
HEAR MORE: Tune in to KPCC’s “AirTalk” at 10 am tomorrow for Kyle Stokes’ interview with UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl.
https://www.scpr.org/listen_live
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé.
LikeLike
For those who missed it, here’s the archive of this morning’s KPCC Air Talk interview with UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl:
(it starts at about 15:35)
https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2019/01/03/19293/
LikeLike
Cradle to grave, indeed! It should be noted, SOPIPA,(Student Online Personal Information Protection Act) only applies to K-12. CBE and AI funders, working feverishly to push this along through various tentacles, are targeting the home visited babies t0 pre-k kids. Data grab.
https://termsfeed.com/blog/sopipa/
Next problem – Head Start is being dropped so “local neighborhood schools” in wealthier districts will take from k-12 funds to keep those local kids attending…for a fee…
LikeLike