Democrat, Richard Keenan; Ex-mayor rom Ohio, confessed to dozens of sexual crimes including charges of rape, attempted rape, and gross sexual imposition and agreed to a sentence of life in prison. According to court records obtained by The Vindicator, Keenan blamed the victum (age 4) for initiating the acts and called her a "willing participant".
In testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, 9/12/84, pp. 133–134. John Rabun, then Deputy Director of the National Center for Missing Children, stated that:
"100 percent of the arrested pedophiles, child pornographers, pimps, what have you . . . had in their possession at the time of arrest, adult pornography. . . . [It was used] for their own sexual arousal . . . [and] particularly for the pedophiles, was a form of self-validation, "it is OK because I see it in other places. It must be all right, it is published nationally. . . ."
|THE POLITICAL AGENDA|
|THE CALIFORNIA CURRICULUM|
IF YOUR DISTRICT IS STARTING THIS IN PRE-K THRU 6TH GRADE IT IS BY CHOICE
THE LAW ONLY MANDATES INSTRUCTION IN GRADES 7- 12
|THE OPT OUT LANGUAGE IS INTENTIONALLY CONFUSING|
POLITICAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS, FOUNDATIONS AND BIG EDUCATION BUISNESSES RUN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS HAVE NO REPRESENTATION
These are the entities that actually run California and set its education policies in conjunction with the politicians they pay to elect to enact laws that benefit BIG LABOR and BIG EDUCATION. They use public education dollars that should go to the classroom to fund the elections of politicians that enact laws promoted by political advocates from a radical progressive movement that seeks to fundamentally transform America from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist- Communist- Marxist society. Money raised through "fundraising" and through "corporate donations" paid to educational foundations fund this political agenda and take dollars away from the classroom. Billions of classroom dollars are used to promote a political agenda rather than actually educate stduents. That is why California (once the number one public education system in the world is now last in the nation).
STOP THE POLITIZATION OF CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM OR DEFUND PUBLIC EDUCATION AND GO BACK TO SMALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT ARE LOCALLY CONTROLLED.
The most recent example of how this works:
Timeline: AB 1505 Anti- Charter School Bill
Timeline: AB 329 California Healthy Youth Act
These entities direct laws and educational policy changes that are enacted through an "elected" County Superintendent without the County Board of Trustees approval.
The Superintendent sends a letter to every district asking them to approve a resolution in support of [insert name of bad law here]
The Superintendent brings the [insert name of bad law here] to the County Board of Trustees for their approval.
This means that the County Superintendent and all the Districts they work with can take a support position on a piece of legislation while the County Boards of Trustees can take an opposite position.
So even if voters were to elect County Department of Education Trustees that do not support these "progressive" policies they are enacted anyway and the Public has no idea that the Trustees took an opposit possition from the County Superintendent.
There are many examples of the County Board of Trustees taking a "NO" position on a piece of legislation and the County Superintendent taking a "YES" position on a piece of legislation and that is followed by every school district approving a resolution that supports a law that a majority of people absolutely do not want.
Hence the 2016 mandated implementation of AB 329 CA Healthy Youth Act and the public now finding out what the Act really means in 2019.
Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
That is hy the eople of California are finding out about omprehensive sex education instruction in public schools 3 years AFTER the curriculum was mandated.
|THESE POLITICAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS SET PROGRAMS AND POLICIES FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION|
The CA LMI Steering Committee is made up of the top leadership from our state association partners and key leaders in labor-management partnership.
State Organization Executive Leadership
Key State Leaders in Labor-Management and District Support
On March 18, 2018 Shirley Weber (D) introduced AB 2601 which extended CHYA's sexual education and HIV Prevention education requirements to charter schools effective 2019-20.
California Department of Education
“Comprehensive sexual health education” means education regarding human development and sexuality, including education on pregnancy, contraception, and sexually transmitted infections (Ed Code 51931).
The bill requires school districts to ensure that all pupils in grades seven to twelve, inclusive, receive comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education.
The law requires that both comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education are taught once in middle school and once in high school.
The material must be age appropriate and medically accurate
A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education earlier than grade seven may provide age appropriate and medically accurate information on any of the following general topics defined in ED Code Section 1-10 (excluding 11)
CDE's sample letter for OPTING OUT of Comprehenvive sexual health education and HIV prevention.
The sample parent/guardian notification letter (DOCX) is available here.
The Law does not require Health to be taught as a stand alone class that is required to graduate. Health is not a CA High School Graduateion Requirement. All that is required is instruction of limited topics one time in middle school and one time in high school.
The Law does not make districts teach this is any other grade. Any school district teaching this in Pre-K and lower school is "choosing" to do so. It is not required by law.
Capistrano Unified School District
The law requires CUSD to teach Comprehensive Sexual Health education defined as instruction "regarding human development and sexuality, including education on pregnancy, contrception, and sexually transmitted infections" one time in high school and one time in middle school.
The Capistrano Unified School District has made unique curriculum choices that make it very difficult for parents to OPT OUT.
CUSD made "Health" a semester long high school class that is required for a student to graduate.
CUSDWatch Comment: Practically speaking, how is a stduent able to OPT OUT of a class that the district requires in order for a stduent to graduate?
CA Family Code Section 6925 and 6926 are a problem for families and Parental rights.
Under California law, minors aged 12 and above have the right to confidentiality access and make their own decisions regarding reproductive health care, including birth control, prenatal care, abortion, and prevention of and treatment for HIV and STIs.
This is a real problem because the law says the District must give them an excused absence (the right to leave campus) to receive care without any parent notification. The student is excused from campus, but there is no adult supervision once the child walks out the door. I actually view this as child endagerment.
Board Audio at 3:39:32 Trustee Jim Reardon regarding Planned Parenthoods access to stduents.
Superintendent Vital Speaks Out...
"CUSD IS BROKE"
The State's Education Funding Law is NOT FAIR!
Understanding California's Local Control Funding Formula
California's new education funding law: AB- 97 School Finance - Local Control Funding Formula aka "LCFF" was enacted in 2013-14 and distributes K- 12 per pupil funding using the following formula:
The "Base Grant" is universal for all students.
The "Supplemental Grant" provides additional funding to districts based on the percentage of students in the district that are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care.
The "Concentration Grant" provides even more funding for districts that have large concentrations of students that are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care.
Districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care, are funded primarily by the Base Grant.
When the State of California enacted the LCFF law it set the Base Grant at $6,500 per pupil, and limited K-12 per pupil funding to 2007-08 levels + inflation; not to be reach until 2021.
The LCFF was intentionally designed to underfund wealthy suburban school districts.
Superintendent Kristen Vital's Comments on The Local Control Funding Formula and CUSD's financial problems.
CUSD Board Meeting Audio at 16:44 can be heard below.
The Budget discussion is at 1:33 on the embedded audio below
Because CUSD is a "Low Poverty District" CUSD is primarily funded by the Base Funding Grant. CUSD is not a Basic Aid District and CUSD does not receive any Concentration Grant Funds.
Enrollment is declining which means funding is declining.
CUSD saw a 1% increase in revenue for this year.
Under Governor Newsom, funding challenges will continue until the State of California increases the base funding grant for all students in California.
As of right now CUSD continues to pay for text books and chrome books out of one time money.
Because of these financial challenges, CUSD cut $2 million dollars last year and $2.5 million this year in a strategy to focus every dollar on students and the classrooms.
While CUSD values Athletics and the Arts CUSD must make decisions about terrible cuts.
This year we cut Administrators and District Office Functions as opposed to cutting teachers and counselors or other site supports.
Visit CUSD's Financial Transparency Portal where you can see how every dollar is spent.
CUSDWatch Comment: A very disingenuous speech regarding the State's funding law and CUSD's Budget. This law was enacted in 2013-14. It was as unconstitutional then, as it is today. The only reason CUSD is starting to talk about how unfair it is today is because Governor Brown is no longer in office; and therefore, school districts are uncertain about how much one time grant money will continue to flow to underfunded districts to keep up with employee compensation increases and the increased cost of CalSTRS and CalPERS expenses that have been placed on school districts.
CUSD Per Pupil Funding Since LCFF was Enacted
Governor Jerry Brown; by design, set the Base Funding Grant intentionally low - $6,500. The purpose was to be able to withhold education dollars from "Wealthy Suburban School Districts" aka "Low Poverty" school districts, in order to increase state dollars that would be available to backfill public employee pension costs and to fund the Governors pet project, High Speed Rail.
How California Taxpayers know the Base Funding Grant was set to low
In December 2006, the State of California Commissioned a study to determine the cost to "adequately" educate a student in California with special needs weightings. The 2007-08 Calculated per pupil costs with special needs weightings determined that no child in the state of California could be educated for less than $8,932 per pupil. CUSD, a suburban school district should receive $10,726 - $12,077 per pupil to be adequately funded.
The Local Control Funding Formula set K-12 funding at 2007-08 levels + inflation (not to be reached until 2021).
From this study, Governor Brown knew that no child in the State of California could be educated for less than $8,932 in 2007-08. The Base Grant should have been set at no less than $8,932.
The study also showed that suburban school districts (CUSD) should have been funded at levels between $10,726 and $12,077.
Source: Efficiency and Adequacy in California School Finance: A Professional Judgment Approach
How Much Money Has Been Withheld from CUSD since 2013-14?
$790 Million to $1.18 Billion Dollars
One could easily make the argument that we are being taxed twice by having to subsidize our public schools with additional local revenue.
By setting the base grant so low; the State is by design, intentionally underfunding ONLY those Districts that have a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care. The State is denying all students that live in low poverty Districts their fundamental right to achieve equality of educational opportunity. Basing per pupil funding on the wealth, race, and ethnicity of a district is a violation of the equal protection laws of the State of California and the California and US Constitutions. Denying a student sufficient funding to achieve a equality of educational opportunity simply because of where they happen to live, and irrespective of their individual wealth, race or ethnicity constitutes invidious discrimination.
The State is using California's public education system to continually raise new revenues. Rather than use those new revenues to fund a basic education for every student, the State chooses instead, to spend education dollars to create new programs and entitlements that are not constitutionally mandated. The State is using the California public education system to promote political agendas such as the redistribution of wealth rather than guarantee a basic education to all California students.
California's classrooms remain on life support with no forceable change for students going forward under LCFF.
It is not possible for CUSD to continue to find new "local revenues" to make up for taxpayer dollars that are being withheld by the State of California. Especially when CUSD continues to give all employees across the board compensation increases as it has done for the past six years totaling almost $200 million dollars.
Advocating for the funding that CUSD students are constitutionally entitled to is the only solution. A poorly planned school facilities bond; and increased fundraising and donations, will not begin to address the needs of CUSD students, who have been denied adequate funding since 2007-08.
CUSD must demand adequate funding from the State of California.
CUSD has run out of "other peoples money".
The State Has A Constitutional Obligation To Fund K-12 School Facilities.
The State is "CHOOSING" Not To- passing that burden on to local governments.
California's $61 billion dollar 5-year Infrastructure Plan does not allocate a single penny to K-12 Facilities. It does allocate $55 of the $61 billion to Transportation aka "High Speed Rail".
Source: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-Infrastructure-Plan.pdf at page 130
The State has always helped fund school facilities, until recently. As a result of wanting to use infrastructure dollars on his High Speed Rail project, rather than fund facilities for K-12, school districts across the state have been forced to pass local school facility bonds.
Local School Facility Bond Measures
In a Nut Shell
The 2018-19 California State Budget is a record high $201 billion dollars.
Newly Elected Governor Newsom is proposing a 2019-20 budget of $209 billion.
At the same time, the legislature is looking for new ways to spend a $16 billion dollar surplus.
There is no surplus. California's State and Local debt totals an estimated $1.3 trillion dollars. Local school facility bond debt repayment is almost $337 billion alone. That does not include other property based taxes, fees and special assessments such as Parcel Taxes, State School Facility Bonds, Developer Fees or Mello Roos. It is estimated that the State has over $1.3 Trillion dollars of debt, and most of it was forced onto local governments from the State's abuse of our Public Education system.
California "Local" School Facility Bond Debt is $168 billion with interest, repayment is $337 billion dollars.
Since Prop 13 passed in 1978, which reduced property tax rates on homes, businesses and farms by about 57%, the Legislature has looked for new ways to increase revenues to pay for school facilities.
In 2000 voters approved Prop 39 The School Facilities Local Vote Act, which reduced the threshold required to pass school district bond issues from a two-thirds (66.67%) supermajority vote, to a 55% simple majority vote. Since the passage of Prop 39, local school facility bond debt has skyrocketed.
The lower threshold of 55% is an option. Local school boards representing communities that rejected Proposition 39 are allowed by state law to honor the two-thirds vote threshold for tax measures.
Education Lobbyists are now trying to lower the threshold to pass Parcel Taxes from two-thirds (66.67%) supermajority, to a (55%) simple majority.
Why is this important?
Debt incurred by local school districts will effect the ability of Cities and Counties to raise revenue. As such, Cities and counties cannot afford to ignore the actions of local school boards. To protect taxpayers, and preserve the financial stability of the local government they represent, City and County elected leaders have a fiscal obligation to be engaged in local school board actions.
California's Public Education System cannot be allowed to bankrupt the State. It is the public employee unions that want new revenue no matter the cost to taxpayers and the quality of life of every Californian.
The State of California has Record High Revenues...
Let the State Keep its Promise to ALL students.
In 2019, the State of California is enjoying record high revenues of $209 billion. That is up from $143 billion in 2007-08. The State of California has sufficient revenue to provide equality of educational opportunity for all students, but is "choosing" not to adequately fund wealthy suburban school districts.
Where does that leave the 25.91% of CUSD students who are English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced Lunch and/or are in Foster Care?
April 28, 2019
Corice ("Cori") Farrar
sent via e-mail April 28, 2019
Thank you for your prompt response to my April 2, 2019 letter re: Alleged Violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act/ Request for NEPA Review for SR-241 Construction without valid CEQA/NEPA (UNCLASSIFIED).
I wanted to expand on a few points and then ask you for further comment.
"We have not received an application for, or authorized impacts to, waters of the U.S. associated with the construction of SR-241/toll road south of Oso Parkway."
Response to Comment 1:
That is because the TCA has been denied any permits to construct any drainage for the SR 241 Toll Road south of Oso Parkway without opening a new environmental review (NEPA with CalTRANS as the lead agency). Currently, all construction south of Oso is being done under CEQA, with the County of Orange as the lead agency based on the construction of Los Patrones Parkway as a FREE arterial road on Private Property owned by the Rancho Mission Viejo Company.
Despite multiple attempts, the TCA was denied a waste water discharge permit to build any drainage project for the Tesoro Extension of SR 241 south of the Oso Parkway. The TCA currently, has no legal authority to build any projects south of Oso Parkway at this time.
There is no valid NEPA or CEQA for the construction that is currently being completed south of the Oso Parkway Bridge.
Not to be stopped, the TCA proceeded to enter into "Cooperative Agreements" with the County of Orange and The Rancho Mission Viejo Company to use a 401 Waste Water Discharge Permit "F" Street from "A" Street to Oso Parkway Project Certification Number R9-2014-0144 that was granted to Rancho Mission Viejo for the construction of Los Patrones Parkway as a FREE ARTERIAL ROAD. The Permit granted Rancho Mission Viejo gave Rancho Mission Viejo (a private entity) permission to build three basins between Oso Parkway and Chiquita Canyon Road. Instead, what has actually been built (without any NEW environmental review) is the drainage for the Tesoro Extension of SR 241 that was denied wastewater discharge permits three separate times by several different entities.
What has actually been constructed from Oso Parkway to Chiquita Canyon Road is 9 basins (not 3). They have effectively altered all of the water flow north of Oso Parkway to drain from east to west under Los Patrones Parkway into Chiquita Canada Channel. This flows underneath Tesoro High School (a sensitive receptor) and then into the San Juan River and out to the Pacific Ocean at Dana Point Harbor.
Timeline and Documentation
"That said, in 2012, we determined that no impacts to waters of the U.S. would occur as proposed for the construction of SR-241 Tesoro Toll Road Extension Project, an approximately 4.8-mile-long new four-lane toll road between Oso Parkway and Cow Camp Road. This means that portion of the toll road could proceed without any permit from the Corps because it would be outside the Corps’ jurisdiction and authority under section 404 of the Clean Water Act."
Response to Comment 2: I would appreciate clarification on who has jurisdiction over Canada Chiquita Channel LO6; as well as Canada Gobernadora L07 and EL Horno Creek L05.
The following is a map of South Orange County's Integrated Regional Watershed Management Program. This map shows which entity has ownership (jurisdiction) for each segment of the watershed. Ownership of the areas in gray are said to be "unknown". If ownership is unknown, are these segments of water being properly protected, maintained and monitored? This is very important because the gray area portions of the San Juan Creek Watershed are where the TCA is currently building the Tesoro Extension of SR-241. Are they doing so in violation of the Clean Water Act?
Tesoro High School is built on top of Chiquita Canyon Channel, a rare Alkali Riparian Marsh that was actually under federal review for protection at the the time Chiquita Canyon High School aka Tesoro High School was being built (1996- 2001 when it opened).
L06 is named Canada Chiquita Channel. Portions of L06 sit on Parcel 125-096-82 which is owned the Capistrano Unified School District. All four parcels of land that Tesoro High School was built on have been placed into the right-of-way for the Tesoro Extension of the 241 Toll Road aka Los Patrones Parkway aka "F" Street by entities that did not own the land (which is a potential violation of the Subdivision Map Act CC 2001-01 which is currently under review after a formal complaint was filed). These entities had no right to encumber the school districts property. Unfortunately it appears that when the County approved construction of the Oso Bridge Gap Closure Project they did so without opening a new environmental review. The County of Orange has been "Administratively" approving shifts in the alignment of Los Patrones /aka a modified alignment of SR241. All of the drainage for the Oso Bridge, the Oso Bridge Gap Closure Project and the Modified alignment fo SR241 has been designed to drain all wastewater discharge into Canada Chiquita Channel and underneath Tesoro High School which was built on a known, very rare and unique Alkali Marsh (one of 8 identified within the State of California).
The amount of water that has been designed to flow into Canada Chiquita Channel is substantial compared to what was permitted.
You can view Video of Chiquita Canyon Channel at Tesoro High School.
"While we have issued permits to other permittees authorizing impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with the construction of developments and infrastructure in that area, including “F" Street from "A" Street to Oso Parkway and the Cow Camp Road extension, these two projects were presented as infrastructure but not as toll road elements. Accordingly, we completed our NEPA reviews pursuant to our relatively small jurisdiction and authority."
Response to Comment 3:
The TCA, the County of Orange and Rancho Mission Viejo have made material misrepresentations to the San Diego Water Board in obtaining the 401 Waste Water Discharge Permit "F" Street from "A" Street to Oso Parkway Project Certification Number R9-2014-0144
They are intentionally building the Tesoro Extension of SR241 in segments for the specific purpose of avoiding any Federal Review. There are substantial facts to suggest that a criminal fraud investigation into their actions is in the Public's interest.
I would request that your agency come and visually inspect (bring a drone) the work that has been completed to date, and see if the work complies with Certification Number R9-2014-0144.
"Many activities may proceed without Corps oversight or review if no impacts to waters of the U.S. are proposed. When projects propose impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., then a Corps permit would be required and we would assure NEPA review for our permit decisions."
Response to Comment 4:
Given this "NEW" information, I am asking the Army Corps of Engineers to determine if a NEPA review is needed.
"Lastly, I noted that you referenced the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but I did not discern a request for specific documents. Should you wish to submit a FOIA request, it would be most helpful to describe the documents requested in sufficient detail to allow us to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. In making a request, please be as specific as possible with regard to names, titles, dates, places, events, subjects, recipients, type of document. Upon receiving a FOIA request, we make a search and produce any responsive records we locate, expect those that are already publicly available through another agency or an online resource. Should you wish to submit a FOIA request, please submit it to our District’s FOIA Office:..."
Response to Comment 5:
I have not received the documentation I requested to date.
The TCA is using a 401 Waste Water Discharge permit granted to Rancho Mission Viejo to build a FREE Arterial Road, to complete the waste water discharge for the Tesoro Extension of SR 241 from Oso Parkway south to the I-5 at the County line. The TCA, The County of Orange and Rancho Mission Viejo are building the road in segments for the express purpose of avoiding any Federal environmental review. The drainage is almost complete down to the Ortega Highway (5.5 miles south of Oso Parkway). The TCA is already planning the next segment of road, Ortega Highway to Pico Avenue in San Clemente. The Tesoro Extension of SR 241 is within a few miles of San Onofre State Beach. This has all be done without any oversight or the required Federal environmental review.
As such, I am requesting a Federal Review to ensure the Public that they are in compliance with the permit they are working under.
My concern is heightened for the following reasons:
This year, the heavy rain caused all nine basins to overflow. So much water ran into San Juan Creek that Capo Beach was destroyed. See: OC Register Capo Beach crumbles with walkway destroyed, palms uprooted, old buried cars exposed from surf battering.
Was this also caused by the extraordinary amount of water flowing from San Juan Creek into Dana Harbor at that location?
My concern is that without proper environmental review and construction oversight, as they proceed to the I-5 at San Onofre State Beach, what will happen to the buried canisters of nuclear waste at San Onofre Nuclear Power plant should they also alter the water flow into the San Mateo Water Shed without proper oversight?
I would feel better if an entity other than the County of Orange took a look at what is going on here.
If you could help me get that FOIA request filled that would be great. I think one of the problems we have in south Orange County with rogue agencies is that this project is in Orange County (LA jurisdiction for the Army Corp of Engineers) but because parts of the project are also in San Diego County, San Diego has been given Jurisdiction over this project which is why my FOIA request was referred to Carlsbad.
Orange County is so large now, there needs to be Federal Offices in Orange County, not just San Diego and Los Angeles.
As a concerned citizen who lives right at the San Diego Orange County line; just a walk away from the San Onofre nuclear power plant, I would like assurances that altering stream beds without environmental oversight, will not result in similar destruction of our beaches as have happened in Dana Point. Unlike Capo Beach, with metal cars that were uncovered, we have nuclear waste that is buried at the beach in canisters that may be faulty. I would feel safer if Federal Agencies would review what is going on here and ensure the public that buried nuclear wast canisters will not be destroyed by high surf and water flow from changes to the San Mateo Water Shed. That could be disastrous for all of California.
Thank you so much for your time and prompt response. I look forward to hearing from you.
San Clemente Resident, Taxpayer and Student Advocate Capistrano Unified School District
California State Auditor: The University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students Report Number: 2015-107
"From academic years 2010–11 through 2014–15, total nonresident enrollment at the university increased by 82 percent, or 18,000 students, while resident enrollment decreased by 2,200 students, or 1 percent."
The Auditor recommended that Out of State and International undergraduate enrollment be limited to 5%
10,000+ CA Resident students are denied seats every year.
These kids are forced to go outside the UC System and pay on average $54,000 per year in tuition and fees instead of the $14,000 they would have paid at the University of California. Do California families have a spare $160,000 to spend on educational expenses especially after all the taxes they have paid having a promise that if their child was in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class that they would be guaranteed an “appropriate” admission to a UC school.
Stop and think about how much disposable income is no longer being spent within the State of California or our local economies.
10,000 students X $54,000 = $540 million per year
Over 4 years that is $2.2 billion out of pocket for these families.
Does it concern anyone that 88% of the International students are from Asia and the Middle East with 61% coming from The Peoples Republic of China? That should be considered a National Security Risk to our Country because it is not “Diversity”.
Data shows that 239 students within CUSD were denied an “appropriate” admission to UC’s in 2018.
Aliso Niguel: 55 students denied an “appropriate” admission (221 students filed 720 applications- 70 enrolled)
San Clemente: 50 students denied an “appropriate” admission (192 students filed 720 applications- 39 enrolled) https://cusdwatch.com/index.php/2018-san-clemente-high-school-admissions-data-for-the-university-of-california
Record Numbers of Highly Qualified California Students Are Not Being Admitted to the University of California
Record numbers of High Achieving California students just found out they did not get into a UC School, or they received a referral to UC Merced as their only UC option.
Something is terribly wrong. Many of these students represent California's Top 12.5% of their High School graduating class; and are by law guaranteed an admission to an "appropriate" UC school.
The UC Master Plan Defines the UC's Obligations to California High School Graduates.
The University of California is a taxpayer funded educational institution that operates under a Master Plan that requires California residents to be given priority enrollment.
State law affirms the State’s commitment to fund all eligible California residents:
"The University of California and the California State University are expected to plan that adequate spaces are available to accommodate all California resident students who are eligible and likely to apply to attend an appropriate place within the system".
"The State of California likewise reaffirms its historic commitment to ensure that resources are provided to make this expansion possible, and shall commit resources to ensure that [eligible] students ….. are accommodated in a place within the system.” [CA Education Code 66202.5]
Unfortunately, a 2015 California Audit found that each year the UC was "selling" more and more seats to Out of State and International students in order to raise revenue. The UC claimed that this was necessary because the State was not providing adequate resources to the University.
The State was, and continues to be in violation of CA Education Code 66202.5.
The University of California continues to be in violation of their Master Plan Mandate to give California Residents priority enrollment.
Any California student that is in the Top 12.5% of their High School Graduating Class that did not receive an "Appropriate" admission to a UC Campus should Appeal the Universities decision based on the following information.