Calif. teachers union has spent more than $4 million this year to cripple charter schools

As much as it spent on everything in prior two-year legislative session

The California Teachers Association is so intent on destroying educational opportunities for the state’s children that it blew through millions – even more than the region’s Big Oil – just since this spring.

Citing just-filed financial disclosure forms, The Sacramento Bee reports that the state’s largest teachers union spent $3.6 million lobbying against charter schools April-June, more than a million per month.

That brings its 2019 total to $4.3 million, about as much as it spent during the entire 2017-2018 legislative session lobbying on everything. It outpaced even the six-state Western States Petroleum Association ($4.1 million) and Chevron ($3.7 million), making the CTA the highest spender on state lobbying of the year.

The education monopolists are pushing bills that would “hand greater charter authorization and oversight to local districts and county offices” and “limit a charter school to operating within the boundaries of its authorizing body,” according to the Bee.

Fortunately for parents who want affordable options beyond failing public schools, two other anti-charter bills have already failed to leave their chambers: an Assembly bill to cap charters and a Senate bill to ban creation of new charters until 2022.

A spokesperson for the education monopolist said it wants to hold charters accountable. California teachers are not allowed to hold the unions accountable, however: In May a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit to recoup “agency fees” that teachers were required to pay in lieu of union dues.

SOURCE






A Rational Look at the EMS College Degree Issue

Nothing, of late, has stirred more debate than the issue of mandatory college degrees for Emergency Medical Services  personnel. The arguments have been passionate—but they have not always been informed. Let’s look at this issue from a rational perspective. Before we can answer questions about mandatory degrees, we must first reach some conclusions about EMS in general. EMS has been said to consist of three domains: public safety, health care, and public health. Granted, public health is a minor EMS domain leaving public safety and health care as the principal EMS domains.

Generally speaking, public safety can be defined as the protection of the general public. In the United States, public safety almost always consists of at least police protection and fire protection and animal control. These are generally seen as governmental responsibilities. Although some may be volunteer, most fixed-costs are funded or provided by governmental entities. It is uncommon to encounter private or for-profit police and fire departments in the United States, although they may exist. EMS and ambulance services came to the public safety system late in the game (e.g., 1960s to 1970s). Before that, they were operated by funeral homes, hospitals, first aid squads, and, in some instances, by police and fire departments. They were never, for the most part, funded by the governments.

With the development of the modern EMS system, planners opted to integrate EMS into the public safety system instead of the health care system. Oversight of EMS at the federal level was assigned to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which is an arm of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). Many pushed for EMS to be under what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (USHEW). However, it was assigned to the USDOT, where it remains today. Thus, in the United States, EMS seems to have aligned itself with public safety instead of health care. It is forced to receive funding in competition with the two major public safety entities—police and fire. But, since the majority of what EMS does is health care, there is really no significant funding of the system. Thus, the proliferation of volunteer agencies, hospital-based operations (that operate EMS as loss leaders) and for-profit companies has occurred.

So, is EMS health care or public safety? Certainly, there will always be a component of both. But what is the major role? This has a direct bearing on the degree issue. If you look at public safety (police, fire), college degrees are rarely required except when one moves into management or very specialized areas. Certification of firefighters and police officers is typically overseen by state agencies and a college degree, although recommended, is usually not required. Firefighters and police officers become certified by the respective oversight agencies. When a degree is required, the minimum standard is often an Associate’s degree. So, if EMS is public safety, the prevailing standard is certification and not a degree (although a few states require an Associate’s degree for paramedics).

In healthcare, college degrees are a standard for most personnel who come into contact with patients. Some of the Allied Health professions only hold Associate’s degree (e.g., respiratory therapy, x-ray technicians). Most healthcare providers who contact patients hold Bachelor’s degrees or higher (e.g., nursing, pharmacy, physical therapy). Physicians are required to hold doctoral degrees and have post-medical school training (residency), and specialty board certification.

Thus, if EMS is deemed to be primarily healthcare (which it appears to be), then college degrees will be required to have a seat at the table in the House of Medicine. If you look at many of the Commonwealth countries (e.g., Australia, United Kingdom), EMS is a part of their healthcare system and funded in that fashion. Degrees are expected, although in some countries a Bachelor’s degree may take three years instead of the four years we have in the United States, and you see that most of the EMS providers hold some type of degree.

When I got into EMS (quite by accident) in 1974, I was attracted to the medical side of EMS. I liked the patient care and loved learning the science behind it. I knew that I wanted a career in healthcare but I did not see a good future for me and my family in EMS of the 1970s. I stayed in college throughout my EMS career because I knew that only a college degree would allow me a respectable career in healthcare. I ultimately attended a state medical school. Thus, a college education gave me a great career and my family a good life. But, that’s not for everybody and that’s OK.

So, back to the original question: Is EMS primarily healthcare or is it primarily public safety? Whether we want to admit or not, most of what EMS does is to provide medical treatment to individuals and transport them to a healthcare facility. Certainly, we help in disasters, traffic control, rescue, and similar endeavors that are in the domain of public safety. But the bread and butter of EMS is healthcare. Until we embrace healthcare as the principal EMS role or domain, the idea of requiring a college degree is putting the cart before the horse. Current EMS salaries, for the most part (based on the public safety model), are inadequate to justify the requirement of a college degree. What does a college degree bring to EMS in its current form (pseudo public safety/pseudo healthcare)? It has to be more than lip service.

Many years ago, my home state of Texas decided to recognize paramedics who had a college degree. It was done with good intent. They decided to create a second paramedic level referred to as a “Licensed Paramedic” as opposed to a regular or registered paramedic. Now, it didn’t matter what the degree was in (music, Greek literature, Spanish, biochemistry, etc.). If you had a degree you could become a “Licensed Paramedic” although that level of certification had the identical scope of practice to the garden-variety Texas paramedic. We can’t let the current discussion of degrees in EMS become a mental masturbation exercise like occurred in Texas.

So, do I support a college degree requirement for EMS providers? I do. But only when the time is right, and now the time is not right. If EMS is destined to remain a third public safety service funded by a bastardized system of ad valorem taxes, user fees, and donations, then the salaries will never justify the costs and time required for a college degree. I know many paramedics who stayed in school and received their degree. Few stayed in EMS because their degree made them more desirable to occupations that appreciated the benefit of the education. But, if we embrace EMS as a healthcare profession with EMS providers paid well akin to other equally -qualified healthcare providers, then I’m all for college degrees. Your mileage may differ. I guess time will tell.

SOURCE





Another failed and poisonous Leftist dream

"College for all" has destroyed many lives

With the rising number of student loan defaults, the federal government has reaped what it has sown. A government policy to give virtually any student a loan has pushed tens of thousands of them into a financial hole from which they will struggle to escape for years.

A new report from The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) examines the “Casualties of College Debt” and finds that 24 percent of all Direct Loan borrowers—students who borrowed from the federal government—“were either delinquent or in default at the end of 2018” and “in the last 12 months alone, over a million Direct Loan borrowers entered default.”

Delinquency starts when students miss a payment; default doesn’t happen until students don’t pay for nine months.

The problem might also be worse than the TICAS report makes clear. According to a paper from the Federal Reserve of New York, the delinquency rate “is somewhat misleading” because avoiding delinquency and default doesn’t mean borrowers are paying down their debt. “Forty-four percent of borrowers were neither delinquent nor paying down their loans,” the Fed noted. Forbearance, deferment, and income-based repayment plans help borrowers avoid default, but it doesn’t always help them repay the borrowed money.

When almost half of the borrowers aren’t repaying their loans, the benefits of college are hard to see. The “college for all” movement has promised students and parents socioeconomic mobility and a better future, but the ugly reality has left many students worse off than if they had skipped college altogether.

Unsurprising, those former students are in difficult economic circumstances. The TICAS report noted that defaulted borrowers are more likely to live in poverty, be a college dropout, have a dependent child, be a first-generation student, and be black. These students weren’t taking out large amounts of debt, either: 52 percent of those who defaulted borrowed less than $10,000.

What the struggle to repay student debt shows is that the promise of college as a way out of poverty, for many, is myth more than reality.

To be clear, the students struggling the most are not the average student, but they are a significant group. The students with the most student debt are generally fine; they can pay it off, even if it takes decades. But the students who suffer the most are students from low-income families who thought that college was the key to their economic mobility.

Though some coverage of the TICAS report has focused on racial disparities, the scandal of student loan defaults goes beyond race: The consequence of the “college for all” movement has condemned poor students to years, if not decades, of struggle on an over-optimistic promise of success.

The loan default problem, however, is a crisis of completion and of income, not debt. Failing to get a degree means the student wasted time and money when he could have been working; and without a degree, students don’t improve their chances of getting a job. It’s tough enough making ends meet with a low-paying job. When former students have to do so with some college debt on their shoulders, many can’t do it.

Access is a hallmark of American higher education, but given the struggles brought by easy-to-get loans, politicians may need to consider more qualifications before granting loans to potential students. Until completion rates improve or college costs fall, the result of the federal government’s student loan policy will be hundreds of thousands in delinquency and default every year.

What the struggle to repay student debt shows is that the promise of college as a way out of poverty, for many, is myth more than reality.

As the TICAS report makes clear, high default rates do not simply come from a lack of gumption from dropouts and struggling graduates. Loan delinquency and default is a systemic problem for thousands of colleges, and colleges have the power to lower default rates.

A stronger commitment to student retention and graduation would go a long way. Improving the quality of advising sessions, tutoring and extra help when students struggle, and non-traditional forms of support like childcare for student-parents could help. Colleges pour more and more funding into administrative staff and “diversity initiatives;” diverting some of that to student support could go a long way. Less than half of four-year colleges and 44 percent of community colleges offer campus childcare, according to Inside Higher Ed, and both figures have declined compared to a decade ago. Student-parents are increasing and some studies have shown campus childcare services improve retention rates, but colleges have been reluctant to fund this aspect of student services.

Simplifying the FAFSA process may also help students avoid loans in the first place. Making the FAFSA easier to complete—and understand—could show students the true cost of college and student loans by clarifying what aid is a grant and what aid is a loan that demands repayment. It might push them to attend a more-affordable school, a community college, or look into apprenticeships. If the FAFSA were easier to understand, more low-income students might complete it and receive more grant aid to lower their loan totals, too.

If colleges don’t want to take the initiative, then changing federal policy could encourage them to do so. Most colleges face no punishment when students default. They keep the loan money and students keep the debt. But pushing “skin in the game” and making colleges financially liable for high levels of student loan defaults could have a major effect. The devil is in the details, though: Making policy to hold colleges accountable is tricky. Past regulations only targeted for-profit colleges, even though it’s easy to find community colleges or public four-year colleges that have worse outcomes. Senator Josh Hawley’s recent proposal to require colleges to pay 50 percent of student loans that enter default, though, shows that an appetite for accountability exists.

America’s experiment in access-at-any-cost college has failed. If one of every 10 borrowers default on their loans, and almost half of borrowers aren’t paying down their debts, this shows the rot within higher ed. Ever-increasing costs, carried more and more by students, to finance ever-expanding universities, cannot continue without a future crisis. It may be time to embrace a definition of education that isn’t monopolized by colleges and universities. Trade schools, apprenticeships, and direct work experience could benefit many students now pursuing a traditional bachelor’s degree. As Noah Smith argued in Bloomberg, “The four-year university program has become the standard among the educated classes who make education policy. But just because the system worked for them doesn’t mean it works for everyone.” Education policy needs to consider those who didn’t succeed in the system as much as it currently considers those who did succeed.

Reformers argue that the government should get out of the student loan business in order to rein in college costs. But the better argument might be that the federal government has become a bureaucratic loan shark, preying on low-income students.

SOURCE