California Public Education

"Analysts says that high schools send the CSU thousands of students who aren’t prepared to succeed academically. In fall 2017, almost 40 percent of the system’s new freshmen had to take remedial English or math."

Were it not so incredibly serious, this quote from an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune might be shrugged off as not being possibly true.  Most probably, however, the result will be teacher unions attempting to discredit the information, blaming the lack of money for student poor performance, and otherwise working to shift attention from an indisputable fact: California public education fails families.

Consider for a moment the information cited in the quote.  40 percent of those admitted to the California State University (CSU) system required remediation.  That is forty percent of those admitted, meaning the students had grades, scores, and other achievements to be accepted to one of the CSU universities.  What about the countless students suffering through in California public education whose grades and scores were insufficient to earn university admission?

Continuing, a compelling data point would be the university graduation rate for students falling within that forty percent requiring remediation.  How many actually earn a college degree, whether it takes four or six or twenty years?  If requiring remediation, it is reasonable to predict their overall academic preparedness is highly suspect.

Maybe the remediation, drop out, and failure rates among students who are products of the California public education system contribute to the increases in admissions to the CSU and UC systems for out of state and foreign students.  Admission increases in those demographics probably help shore up the university graduation rates, which otherwise would be held down by California students.

At this point it is essential to not blame the students.  They are products of failed education policies.  Placed in the right school environments, with strong academic programs, students (including those from low income and ethnic/racial minorities) can and do succeed.  The Preuss School UCSD is a perfect example.

Mentioning the Preuss School highlights the growth of charter schools in California.  When public education fails their children, families look for alternatives.  Those who can pay for private schools.  Those who can't look to charters.  Yet charters are under attack in California, as illustrated by demands made by teacher unions in Los Angeles and Oakland.  Though the unions may scream and shout; attempt to obfuscate; and limit the number of charter schools (their educational competition), it is irrefutable that if public education worked, families would not be seeking out alternatives.

The bottom line is horrible.  When the California public education system produces high school graduates unprepared for academic success in its universities, even after 40 percent of freshmen receive remediation, the only possible conclusion is that this taxpayer funded education system is a failure.     

Eliminating the competition

Recent teacher strikes in Los Angeles and Oakland, California were resolved, in part by increased pay and limiting charter schools.  The exceptional power of teacher unions, which fear and loathe charter schools, directly contributed to the decisions made by school boards beholding to the unions for their election campaign funding.  

These recent school board decisions were nothing more than teacher unions coercing them to eliminate the competition.

Stipulating there are poor-to-unsatisfactory charter schools, just as there are poor-to-unsatisfactory conventional public schools; outstanding public school teachers, just as there are exceptionally poor ones (protected by onerous teachers bargaining union agreements); a closer examination of the problems with public education reveals one simple fact.

Charter schools would not be an attractive option for parents if traditional public schools did a better job creating a positive environment and educating students.  It comes as no surprise that policies governing public schools in mainly liberal areas of the country are abysmal, making charters more attractive.  For example, soft on suspension policies, such as in New York City, create chaotic campuses and classrooms, in which learning takes a distant second place to safety concerns.  Disruptive students, uncontrolled and unpunished by parents, dominate classrooms, up to and including assaulting teachers and staff.  And fewer and fewer are suspended.  Why?  Because of a false flag of racial disparity in suspensions.  It matters not the race or ethnic group of the student who tells the teacher to F*** Off, maybe throwing a chair for good measure.  Such behavior warrants immediate consequence, including removal from the classroom and school for three-to-five days.  This absence of basic classroom discipline ensures poor-to-unsatisfactory educational environment, leading parents to look for better options.

Across the nation, those with the resources pay for private schooling, including parochial schools.  This option is not available to the majority of parents, so they must either accept the unacceptable or pursue something else.  That something else led to the birth and growth of the charter school movement across the U.S.  It costs the family nothing more for their children to attend charter schools than it does to attend the public schools, into which more and more dollars have been dumped, without a corresponding improvement in education.

California was recently ranked 47 of 50 in public education, proving its approach to throwing more and more money at it does not work.  Parents are wise consumers, seeing that it is not working, so they seek out charter schools.  Competition at its best.

When students move from a traditional public school, state provided funding goes with them to the charter school.  This means, in districts like Oakland and Los Angeles, the public school have fewer butts in seats, meaning fewer teachers are needed.  Fewer teachers means less union dues (Note:  in the wake of the JANUS decision public sector union membership is declining, even as teacher unions manipulate the process by which members can resign, concurrently strong arming those desiring to resign.)  Now the real crux of the matter presents itself.  Money.

Fewer teachers are required in union dominant traditional public schools due to declining enrollment as families move their children to non-union dominant charter schools.  Combined with the JANUS Supreme Court decision, this means significantly fewer potential dues paying members in teacher unions.  Fewer dues paying members means less money into the union coffers.  Less money in union coffers means less money for supporting elections, so the unions created leverage by means of the strikes.

During the Oakland and Los Angels strikes, one major union objective was to curtail or eliminate the competing charter schools.  Be assured, this objective had nothing to do with improving education, because if the traditional Oakland and Los Angeles public schools were seen by families to be doing a good job teaching their children, there would not be a desire to go to a charter.  Parents are consumers of a product: public education.  They pay for the product by their tax dollars, allocated by what California calls Average Daily Attendance funding from the state based on per student funds calculated by attendance.  When an inferior product (poor-to-unsatisfactory public education) is foisted upon them, parents take their tax dollars to buy a superior product: charter school education.  So in their minds, teacher unions had to tamp down or eliminate the competition that is wooing away families by providing a better product. 

Rather than improve the traditional pubic school education, effectively removing the aforementioned motivation, unbelievably some boards of education kowtowed to the unions and effectively agreed to eliminating the competition.  In Oakland and Los Angeles, they could not legally eliminate the charters, so they did the next best thing, worked on capping new charters.  (As an aside, the lousy state of public education in the two named school districts drives the demand for new charters.)  It will not come as a surprise that unions are pressuring approving school districts and school boards to withhold renewing of charters.   

It is really fairly basic.  Rather than seriously undertake substantive improvements with staying power, consequently removing the parent/education consumer motivation to depart traditional public education, school districts, boards, and unions are focused upon eliminating any competition/alternative.  In this manner, the unions seek to preserve their source of funding: membership dues.  Of course, they will cloak it all in propaganda about it all being "for the students."

K-12 Public Education in California

While perusing the news online, I came upon a local editorial concerning public education. Here’s an astounding bit. “ In the fall 2016 term, 23 percent of CSU [California State University] freshmen had to take remedial English and 28 percent had to take remedial math, with some students needing both such classes, which don’t provide credit toward college graduation.” Also astonishing was information the average high school 3.2 GPA for these students.

So, if understanding correctly, roughly one-fourth of the students admitted as freshmen to the CSU system did not meet basic math and English proficiency.  And this is for the admitted students, perhaps implying an even higher rate for those not provided entry in the competitive admissions process.  This, after years of increased education budget demands by the teacher unions, which claim to be doing a much better job educating California K-12 students, as reflected in higher graduation rates and higher GPAs. Yeah, right!

Reading what came next produced a shaking head. “CSU officials see the remedial classes as frustrating students, prompting some to drop out and slowing the progress to graduation for many.”  Of course students requiring remediation in English and math are going to be frustrated. After being socially promoted and given "good" grades by the members of the California Teachers Association, the harsh reality of undergraduate university education causes tremendous angst.  For years these students were coddled, only to find themselves ill prepared for college studies. So it is no surprise many drop out. And I would guess the majority of the impacted students are minority and low income.

Yet their plight has nothing to do with their race, ethnicity, or economic levels. These has been proved by the demanding coursework and approach by the Preuss School UCSD.  Admitting solely low income, first generation (neither parent attended college) students, then teaching only a demanding college prep curriculum, Preuss provides an education leading to highly qualified students ready for college.  Far too many California general public schools do not.

Per the editorial, the CSU’s answer, “No longer willing to wait for K-12 schools to improve, CSU Chancellor Timothy P. White last week announced that beginning in fall 2018, CSU will drop the English and math placement tests and end noncredit remedial classes.  CSU officials see the remedial classes as frustrating students, prompting some to drop out and slowing the progress to graduation for many.  They believe new ways can be adopted to help students improve English and math skills while taking regular college coursework.” 

What an abysmal and short sighted approach, particularly in the face of the all too common results from typical public schools.  Ignoring the lack of academic preparedness will not solve the problem.  How does one boost a college freshman’s inadequate math and English proficiency to levels required for university studies without remediation?  How can a college freshman begin successful studies without the minimum English and math proficiency, when the K-12 system does not educate to it??

If the CSU feels students are currently frustrated with remediation, what do they believe will happen as more and more students fail classes due to lack of English and math proficiency?  Perhaps they will reduce the number of students admitted from California public schools, in order to reduce the number of struggling freshmen.  Or maybe they will simply adopt the K-12 public school strategy of social promotion and grade/graduation inflation, providing employers a grossly under-educated employee pool.

Simply disgusting.

Putting all of this in perspective, let it be kept in mind that the admissions criteria for the CSU system is not as rigorous as the majority of the top universities and colleges in the nation.  Thus graduates of the conventional Californian public K-12 systems are unable to compete for spots in the most prestigious schools in the country.

Why do the people not see that lowering the standards, as the CSU appears to be doing, is not the answer?  For too many years the all too politically powerful California teacher unions have wasted taxpayer provided resources.  K-12 education is the foundation, one that needs immediate attention.  Attention, not dollars.  Effective policies, not apologies.  Teacher accountability, not raises for union officials.  Upheld standards, not social promotion.  Rigorous academics, not expensive sports programs.  Longer school days and school years, not fewer.

Until the people of California fully appreciate the seriousness of the failing public K-12 system, their sons and daughters will be less and less prepared for higher education.    

Reactions to Travel Restrictions Highlight Public Education Failure

Ironically, some of the ballyhoo surrounding the travel restrictions serves to highlight the failure permeating our system of public education.  One report describes how “tech giants” joined in an amicus curiae brief against the executive order.  The report states, “The ban prevents tech companies from attracting talent,” indicating they can not source enough “talent” from within the United States.

Public education is in shambles.  There is no other way to put it.  Story after story, report after report describe the problem from a variety of perspectives.  Attempting to counter these reports and stories, some elected officials employ a form of progressive sleight of hand to try to convince us the problem is not real.  One such ploy is reporting graduation rates are rising, thereby arguing education is improving. In perhaps one of the most egregious stories, in New York, “Mayor de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña cite the city wide 72 percent graduation rate as evidence that schools are improving. Rarely noted — only an average 37 percent of students graduate ready for college.” 

Only “37 percent of students graduate ready for college.”  Really?  And the same New York Post article reports, “But the stats are even worse at other schools such as Urban Assembly HS of Music and Art in Brooklyn, which boasted a 82.5 percent graduation rate but only 3.8 percent of the senior class was college ready.”  A measly 3.8 percent of a senior class was evaluated as college ready.  Almost concurrently the Mayor of New York touts “a record high graduation rate of 72.6 percent in 2016 after five straight years of improvement.”  Of course, teacher unions clap loudly at the otherwise abysmal results, with the Post reporting, “The teachers union also hailed the results.”  Even if accepting the claim of a 72.6 percent graduation rate, the level of college preparedness is highly questionable based on other reports.

The preceding examples come from one public school system in New York City, that bastion of liberal policies and approaches.  It can be argued that if New York City cannot provide quality public education, then it likely cannot be provided elsewhere.  And the tech sector relies on a highly educated workforce, though sadly the nation is meeting its public education responsibilities, with the former CEO of Sun Microsystems declaring public education is failing.  And this circles back to the views of “tech giants.”     

The tech giants complain about an inability to attract talent from overseas, implying if not outright stating they cannot find the talent they require within our country: a country with more than 50 million students in elementary and secondary education, according to The National Center for Education Statistics estimates.  Certainly the raw talent needed by the tech giants should be found in such a large student population.  Apparently not, if we are to believe the tech giants.

If nothing else decries the state of public education, certainly the complaints of leading tech companies that hire enormous number of employees must stand out.  Regardless of what the elected officials and school unions would have us believe, the public school system is failing too many of our citizens.  When major employers cannot find adequately numbers of prepared individuals for the workforce they need from local resources, and so complain about travel restrictions closing off some sources of potential employees, it rings as an indictment against public education. 

Ironic, isn’t it, that an unintended consequence of the ballyhoo surrounding travel restrictions is the stark and unambiguous condemnation of public education.    

New York City public education

"Last year, 16 percent of kids in grades three, four and five passed the state math exam — well below the 41 percent citywide average; 19 percent passed the English exam, compared to 40 percent citywide. The 2016 exams had fewer questions and gave students unlimited time to finish."

The above is taken from a New York Post  article about one elementary school.  What is striking, demoralizing so, are the cited city wide averages of 41 percent for math and 40 percent for English state exam scores.  Focus on those numbers for a moment.

In New York City, the averages for math and English are 41% and 40% respectively.  How, we must ask, can students succeed in the light of those scores?  How are they being prepared to succeed as citizens in our nation?  This, in a city dominated by Democrats, with some of the highest per student spending on education in the nation.  According to the US Census figures from 2013, New York City public schools spent the second most amount per student ($20,331) in the nation.  Only Boston ($20,502) spent more.

How do the people of New York stand by and accept such an abysmal and inexcusable situation?  Would they accept only 40% of the subways working on any given day?  Would they accept only 41% of the trash being collected?  Would they accept only 40% of calls for the fire department being answered?  Would they accept only 41% of the streets being cleaned?

For all of that, the average numbers cited for passing the state math and English exams are stunningly low.

Leaves one speechless!