Bill requires overtime pay for home care workers

by Brian Leubitz

While overtime pay has been required for decades in most industries, domestic workers have always been exempted. While the logic is far from clear, home health care workers, nannies and other home care workers were simply left out of the arrangement. AB 241 changes that:

“Domestic workers are primarily women of color, many of them immigrants, and their work has not been respected in the past,” said Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), the bill’s author. “Now they will be entitled to overtime, like just about every other California working person.”(LA Times)

Now, that is not to say that AB 241 goes as far as Asm. Ammiano wanted to go with his domestic workers bill. Last year’s AB 889, which was vetoed by the governor (veto message here), would have guaranteed meal breaks and other rights.  However, this bill does commission a study to review the totality of working conditions for domestic workers to be completed by 2017 and that could provide the data for further protections.

All that being said, overtime is a great first step for domestic workers, and groups like Mujeres Unidas y Activas celebrated the victory yesterday at the signing.

MUA is so proud of this victory and the role we have played in this work over the past 8 years.  We know that the work truly just begins now – the work of educating workers about their rights and employers about their responsibilities, the work of building the base of organized worker to reach the thousands and hundreds of thousands in California, the work of sharing the story and model of our organizing campaign with our sisters across the country who are just starting this journey, the work of winning even more rights and protections for domestic workers, and the work of changing our culture to respect and recognize the work that makes all other work possible.

Brown moves state away from DC-centric reformers

by Brian Leubitz

Not only is Jerry Brown standing up to Arne Duncan on testing, but he’s also something of a pioneer in tweaking the school funding formulas.  Sure, our per pupil spending is still shockingly low, but with our recovery, we have a little more money to shift around. It’s how that shifting is going to work that has brought the state into the disagreement with so-called education reformers.

As I noted in a post last week, California and Washington have taken distinctly different approaches to achievement gaps that increasingly are most closely associated with economic inequality. Rather than focusing on firing “bad” teachers and closing schools, California has moved to direct more resources to low-income districts and increase local decision-making, with sanctions a last resort after support and technical assistance have failed. …

In March, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, headed by Brown’s appointee Linda Darling-Hammond, pushed back against the federal predilection to ensure teacher quality by de-emphasizing preparation standards in favor of a holy grail of downstream effectiveness measures. The Commission voted to ramp up pre-service training requirements for interns teaching English learners and in-service supervision requirements for all interns, particularly those teaching ELs. And Washington’s darlings, Teach for America and the charter school lobby, suffered a rare loss when the credentialing commission determined “innovation” can’t excuse putting teachers who know little or nothing about teaching English as a second language in front of English learners.(EdSource)

I had a few friends that went through the TeachForAmerica program, and I know it was an extremely beneficial experience for them. However, it is far from clear that the same can be said to be true for the students. Test results don’t really bear it out, and simple common sense should dictate that enthusiasm alone won’t replace the years of training that helps to make good teachers for our students.

Moreover, the Governor has been one of the bigger supporters of reforming our testing system, as shown through that recent fight with Sec. Duncan over testing and the new Common Core Curriculum. NCLB has been something of a disaster for our long term competitiveness. It made many of our students good test takers and really solid at learning how to jump through hoops. But “fill in the bubbles” testing gives us a very two-dimensional description of our students. Gov. Brown has been focused on testing that covers more ground and emphasizes the skills that the students need.

These tests are a little more difficult to develop, and in the best case scenario aren’t delivered as often. That, of course, doesn’t make the education reformers all that happy. But it is in the best interests of our students and our teachers. While some would argue that “America’s Greatest Eduation Governor 2013” is too close to CTA, it is clear that he is working with the teachers for the benefit of our students. We need to keep good teachers in the classroom, and encourage below average teachers to become better. The Governor is working with CTA to do that, a laudable goal from any perspective.

The whole EdSource article is worth a read, but if nothing else, this is a solid takeaway:

Is it too much to hope that Washington will begin taking notice and start moving toward the anti-poverty educational policies being pursued in the state where one in eight public school students attend school? Or perhaps the best we can hope for is that continued partisan gridlock in D.C. will continue to create opportunities for California to go its own way.(EdSource)

Not only should California be allowed to develop our own reforms, other states should work to emulate our programs where they prove to be successful. Gov. Brown deserves a lot of credit for his continued strong education record.

Court is putting finger on the scales toward a settlement

by Brian Leubitz

The Court has been pretty upfront with their displeasure with the progress on prison population reduction. But perhaps they are also less than thrilled with the simple private prisons option and see a ray of light with the proposals that the Senate Democrats brought to the issue.  Either way, the Court granted the state four weeks, moving the date back from the end of the year until Jan 27, 2014. (PDF of the order). Here’s the important part for that delay:

The December 31, 2013 deadline shall be extended until January 27, 2014, without prejudice to the parties’ filing a joint request for a further extension or the Court so ordering. During the meet-and-confer process and until further order of the Court, defendants shall not enter into any contracts or other arrangements to lease additional capacity in out-of-state facilities or otherwise increase the number of inmates who are housed in out-of-state facilities.

Now, four weeks, you are thinking? Well, the judges have a plan for those four weeks. As mentioned in that last paragraph (actually the third of three paragraphs in the order), the state and the plaintiffs in the case were ordered to a negotiation process overseen by First District Court of Appeal Justice Peter Siggins. Justice Siggins will then notify the Three Judge Panel on Oct 21 whether there is hope for a settlement. Specifically, he was tasked with looking at a number of options to reducing populations, which apparently the Court finds preferable to the leasing additional capacity.

The meet-and-confer process shall explore how defendants can comply with this Court’s June 20, 2013 Order, including means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to the prison crowding problem.  The discussions shall specifically include: (a) three strikers; (b) juveniles; (c) the elderly and the medically infirm; (d) Immigration and Customs Enforcement prisoners; (e) the implementation of the Low Risk List; and (f) any other means, including relocation within the state, that are included in defendants’ May 2, 2013 List.  Justice Siggins and the parties may also discuss any necessary or desirable extension of the December 31, 2013 deadline beyond that provided for in the final paragraph of this order, as well as any other matters they deem appropriate.

These criteria are remarkably similar to a letter written by the ACLU to the Governor on how we could release prisoners without leasing additional capacity. So clearly the court is looking for an option beyond the Governor’s plan, and appreciates the dialog that the Legislature had with the Senate’s plan. Of course, at the heart of the Senate Democrats plan was a three year delay brought about by a settlement with the plaintiffs.

This is a lot of reading of tea leaves out of a three paragraph order. But if some progress can be made over the next four weeks, maybe we can spend a little more time reforming the heart of the troubling system as the Senate Democrats hoped to do.

Three Judge Panel Grants 4 Week Delay

Ten years after Gov. Davis signed the bill for the first time, we may get them for real

by Brian Leubitz

Asm. Alejo’s AB 60 to provide drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants was presumed to be in a holding pattern for next year. However, at the last minute yesterday, the logjam cleared, and the Legislature sent the bill to the Governor.

The governor, for his part, says that he will sign it.

“This bill will enable millions of people to get to work safely and legally,” Brown, a Democrat, said in an email sent to reporters shortly after midnight. “Hopefully it will send a message to Washington that immigration reform is long past due.”

California will not be the first state to have such a license, Utah has one that says “temporary visitor’s drivers license” in big letters on the front.  California will attempt to be somewhat more discreet, but it still must be clearly labeled to comply with federal law.

After the change was made, the bill even got a handful of Republican votes. It seems a few GOP legislators understand that the risks of inaction were higher than the risks of action. Sen. Canella (R-Ceres) even led a group of Republicans calling on the federal government to take action on immigration reform.

Environmentalists balk at Assembly amendments to Fran Pavley’s SB 4

by Brian Leubitz

Once there was a real split in the environmental community over fracking legislation. The National Resources Defense Council, CLCV and a number of other organizations were supporting Sen. Fran Pavley’s SB 4 to regulate the process. Others were calling for a complete moratorium to gather sufficient data to ensure safety.

It seems that bifurcation has ended upon the oil and gas friendly amendments made to the bill in the Assembly. The only remaining California bill this term to address fracking (SB 4) passed through the Assembly yesterday morning with new amendments by the oil and gas industry that undermine the bill’s original intent. The Natural Resources Defense Council, California League of Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action and Environmental Working Group no longer support SB4 due to these amendments.

“Californians deserve to have their health and drinking water sources protected from oil and gas development. Last-minute amendments, added due to oil industry pressure, threaten to weaken the environmental review required by CEQA,” said Miriam Gordon, California Director of Clean Water Action.

“This unfortunate turn of events should give Governor Brown even more reason to immediately put in place a moratorium on fracking and well stimulation while the state evaluates the risks,” said Damon Nagami, senior attorney for NRDC.

Prior to the introduction of the new amendments that compromise the bill, NRDC, CLCV, CWA and EWG had been working to put the critical safeguards that SB4 contains – new permit requirements, groundwater monitoring, public notification, inter agency management and independent hazards study – in place to protect Californians from risky fracking activities.

The bill has now passed the Senate concurrence as well, and is as good as on the Governor’s desk. For better or worse, it looks like he is leaning toward signing it:

“The administration has worked collaboratively with the Legislature to craft a bill that comprehensively addresses potential impacts from fracking, including water and air quality, seismic activity and other potential risks,” Brown spokesman Evan Westrup said in an email.(Bee)

Governor said he supports a transitional curriculum year without mandatory testing

by Brian Leubitz

School “reformers” in DC really love testing. Looooooovvvve it. Testing for good reasons. Testing for bad reasons. Testing to see what kids know of the subject matter. Testing to see how well kids can take a test.

But with the change to the new “Common Core” curriculum, the designers of the California STAR tests haven’t been able to keep up. The new tests that teach to the new curriculum won’t be available until next school year. So, no reasonable person would be pushing testing on an old curriculum, right?

Well, see the first paragraph. Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, really loves testing. Loves it so much that he wants the STAR tests to continue, despite the fact that our students are being taught different material. Asm. Bonilla’s AB 484 would allow school districts to opt out of the testing for a year while the curriculum changes. It would also set up an opt-in program for computerized testing for the common core standards.

Really, testing for the current curriculum seems quite simple, but it never is. That being said, it looks like the Governor is undeterred by DoE threats to hold back money:

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said California’s request for a one-year reprieve from using STAR tests in math and English for the current school year is unacceptable and may force his department to “take action.”

“No one wants to over-test, but if you are going to support all students’ achievement, you need to know how all students are doing,” Duncan said in a statement Monday night. …

“There is no reason to double-test students using outdated, ineffective standards disconnected from what’s taught in the classroom,” (Brown spokesman Jim) Evans added.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, who is sponsoring Bonilla’s bill, was in the Capitol on Tuesday talking to lawmakers about the importance of AB 484. The former legislator said it is a better investment to redirect the $25 million used to give the outdated STAR tests to instead allow more students to try new computer-based assessments.

“I’m disappointed someone in Washington would want to interfere in the legislative process in California,” (SSPI) Torlakson told The Bee. (SacBee)

Look, the testing will be back next year. But can’t we just agree that we should be testing on what we are teaching our students? Will one year really make or break the whole system?

Brown’s plan basically holds, with hope held out for greater reform

by Brian Leubitz

With time running out on funding and planning prison transfers, Sen. Steinberg has compromised to something appearing very similar to Gov. Brown’s original plan:

A modified version of Gov. Jerry Brown’s prison housing plan appears headed for approval after Brown and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, the plan’s chief critic, announced today they reached a compromise.

The state will proceed with Brown’s plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce California’s prison population by moving thousands of inmates to local lockups and out of state, but only if federal judges overseeing California’s prison overcrowding case do not give the state more time to address overcrowding.(Sac Bee)

That “but only if” is the compromise that Steinberg was able to get from the Governor. It also represents the great hope of his own plan that perhaps the court would grant the state additional time to deal with the overcrowding and get back to 137.5% of capacity. That delay is still quite speculative at this time. If it is ultimately denied, this plan looks pretty close to what Gov. Brown offered up originally. If there is a delay, perhaps we can really work on some of those needed reforms.

I will be on KPFK’s Uprising tomorrow at 8:20 to discuss the prison mess, as the legislative session draws to a close with no clear plans to comply with the court order.

by Brian Leubitz

Right now, the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee is holding a hearing on the prison proposals. Suffice it to say there is a lot of political posturing going on right now. You can watch now on the CalChannel.

The committee will hear testimony on AB 84, the Senate Democrats’ Safe, Sustainable and Fiscally Responsible Plan to Reduce Crime and Settle the Prison Overcrowding Crisis. The plan, which avoids any early releases of inmates, offers settlement of a federal court order to reduce California’s prison population by approximately 9,600 inmates by December 31, 2013. The committee will also review the Governor’s proposal – which is in included in SB 105 in the Assembly – which relies solely on temporary expanded prison capacity. More details of the plan are available in this post.

However, here are a few numbers from a recent David Binder poll that should probably factor into the decision:

These goals are the heart of the Senate plan, and they are nothing but laudable. However, as the Governor and supporters of his plan are quick to point out, the Senate plan requires a quick settlement with the plaintiffs as well as approval from the courts for a three year delay. And that’s where you get much of the tussling in today’s hearing.

There is no question that our prisons are overcrowded. We are locking up unheard of percentages of our population, and not coming up with any good solutions on how to reduce these numbers. Perhaps the Senate’s plan is a bit of wishful thinking, but our previous attempts have been simplistic and led directly to our current crisis.

But hey, on the bright side, the prisons are going to allow same sex marriages. So, that’s something…

Plan calls for settlement with prison plaintiffs, sentencing reform

by Brian Leubitz

As I mentioned yesterday, the prisons are a mess. However, things can get worse. My friend, and SF School Board member, Matt Haney co-authored an op-ed in the SF Chronicle with Van Jones about the governor’s position on the issue:

Gov. Jerry Brown confirmed this week that he is pulling his prison policies out of a 1980s playbook. It is heartbreaking to watch our nation’s most famous Democratic governor cling to outdated, lock ’em up notions that even conservatives are abandoning in droves. …

Tuesday, he made his most shocking step yet by proposing to send inmates to for-profit prisons. This boondoggle will cost an additional $315 million and more than $1 billion over three years to house thousands of people in private prisons leased by the state. Even our most extreme, fear-mongering politicians of decades past would have been reluctant to put forward such a scheme.

Brown appears hell bent on being on the wrong side of history. Across the political spectrum, leaders are beginning to understand that we need to invest in rehabilitation, re-entry programs, and evidence-based alternatives, rather than continuing our failed policies of mass incarceration. (Matt Haney and Van Jones / SF Chronicle)

So, while the Governor is working hard to come to some sort of immediate solution, there is not much optimism for a progressive in the plan. Meanwhile, Sen. Steinberg has a plan, but it relies on one very crucial assumption: he can get the plaintiffs in the suit to settle and have the judges agree to a three year delay on implementation.  As I mentioned yesterday, it is a big risk and not entirely clear how the judges would rule even with a settlement.

But there is reason to believe that a settlement would be possible. And perhaps Gov. Brown is playing a game to force the plaintiffs hand in some really tricky three dimensional chess strategy. Brown’s plan is pretty much everything the plaintiffs don’t want. Under all this, they would like to see some sentencing and other reforms in the prison system. The governor’s plan pretty much goes in the entirely opposite direction. It is also worthwhile to note that the ACLU crunched some numbers to show that the state could meet the court order only using the techniques Brown has previously supported.

Now here is where Steinberg comes in. If he can get the plaintiffs to settle, and the court agrees to a delay, perhaps we have created the real opportunity that we need to follow the lead of other states like Kansas (!) that have already done much to decrease the mass incarcerations that have been building in our country over the past fifty years. In fact, the ACLU has a very interesting report on the subject. While three years may not be the time frame everybody would ideally target, it is realistic. And maybe Steinberg’s plan is a good start on how we get there.

Now, as for that plan, you can see an outline here or over the flip. It is far from perfect. It calls for an advisory commission to review our public safety system, but doesn’t really provide the specifics of how we really get to the important reductions we need in our prison system. However, maybe that lack of specificity is for the best now. Maybe it could set up the conditions of real reform that we need. But if we don’t meet that court order, we’ll be back to square one in three years. And maybe those three years could make a big difference.

Durable Solutions – Senate Democratic Caucus – Aug2813