https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/pizzagate-downfall-hidden-plain-sight

 

Fox 59

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. . . ."

 Morality

The Slippery Sloap into Moral Decay

Abortion

New Yorks Reproductive Health Act

Jan 2019 SB S240 permits late term abortions, drops the requirement that abortions must be performed by a doctor, and decriminalizes the practice of performing abortions. 

Infanticide

Virginia House Bill 2491

Jan 2019 HB 2491 eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital. The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman's informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman's informed written consent be first obtained. The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman's health would be substantial and irremediable. The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals. 

Euthanasia

"Death with Dignity"

Six states and Washington, D.C., have death with dignity statutes:

California (End of Life Option Act; approved in 2015, in effect from 2016)

Colorado (End of Life Options Act; 2016)

District of Columbia (D.C. Death with Dignity Act; 2016/2017)

Hawai‘i (Our Care, Our Choice Act; 2018/2019)

Oregon (Oregon Death with Dignity Act; 1994/1997)

Vermont (Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act; 2013)

Washington (Washington Death with Dignity Act; 2008) 

Decriminalizing Pedophilia

H.R.5 - Equality Act

Introduced in the House of Representatives May 10, 2019

The proposed Equality Act (H.R. 5) turns sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) into protected classes under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

 
THE POLITICAL AGENDA

Who is Kevin Jennings?

In 2009 President Obama appointed Kevin Jennings as the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN.

GLSEN

In 1990 Kevin Jennings founded the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Education Network (later changed to GLSEN the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), which seeks to end discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

He is the author of six books promoting homosexuality:

Mama's Boy Preachers Son: A Memoir of Growing Up, Coming Out, and Changing Americas Schools.

Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students

Telling Tales Out of School: Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Revisit Their School Days

One Teacher in Ten 1st Ed: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories

One Teacher in Ten 2nd Ed: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories

Always My Child: A Parent's Guide to Understanding Your Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, or Questioning Son or Daughter

The Public demanded Kevin Jennings resignation once they learned about "Fist Gate" and connections to Harry Hay and NAMbLA.

GLSEN - Boston "TeachOut" Conference

On March 25, 2000 the State of Massachusetts in coordination with GLSEN sponsored an education workshop at Tufts University entitled "TeachOut".

The "Fistgate" Conference

Students were bussed in from high schools across MA. Scott Whiteman, executive director of Parents' RIghts Coalition (now known as MassResistance) personally witnessed what happened and made audio recordings of the event which revealed that students were being instructed on how to perform sex acts that included oral sex, fisting and others.  Kevin Jennings representing GLSEN as the keynote speaker at the Conference defended the event which became nationally famous as "Fist Gate".

MassResistance maintains all documentation (audio and transcripts) of the Conference.

Audio Transcript #1

Audio Transcript #2

Materials handed out included:

Boston Glass handout 

Sequin Packate (Fisting Kit)

First Aid Kit

Planned Parentood (abortion, voluntary sterilization, and contraception)

Other Hand-Outs

Jennings resigned from his position in the Obama Administration and became the President and Chief Executive Officer of Be the Change.

The Bully Project 


 

The Controversy Over Kevin Jennings / Harry Hay / NAMbLA

Homage to Marxist, Visionary, and Gay Liberation pioneer, Harry Hay

NAMbLA stands for Man Boy Love. The Organization was formed in 1979 as a support group for men that were sexually attracted to boys. NAMbLA also acts as an advocacy organization that works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors. The group also campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.

Planned Parenthood

Comprehensive Sexual Health Education is a national curriculum that was initiated by Planned Parenthood in 2010 in coordination with PFLAG. It started as a movement to prevent bullying and to make schools more inclusive and tolerant of kids who were LGBTQ.

The ARM Program

Adult Role Models as Sexuality Educators

Planned Parenthood of New York City Adult Role Models Program Manual

"Planned Parenthood of New York City believes that parents should be the primary sexuality educators of their children. However, many parents lack both the confidence and the skills to talk with their children about sexuality. The Adult Role Models program at PPNYC was designed to provide parents and caring adults (such as grandparents, etc.) with the skills and information they need to become the primary sexuality educators of their children."

 

US Government Accountability Office Health Care Funding 

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, received over $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds from 2013 to 2015.

Yet despite receiving billions in taxpayer funds over the course of three years, Planned Parenthood’s scope and services have both declined.

Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2015-16

And continue to decline

Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2017-18 

 Inclusive Sex Education

In December 2015 Planned Parenthood along with five other political advocacy organizations  issued a national Call to Action:  

LGBTQ Youth Need Inclusive Sex Education 

Advocates for Youth 

"Young people understand that reproductive and sexual health and rights are inextricably tied to social justice and the fight for liberation. Join thousands of youth activist and adult allies as we build a better and more equitable world."

Answer sex ed, honestly 

"Answer is a national organization that provides and promotes  unfettered access to comprehensive sexuality education for young people and the adults who teach them."

GLSEN 

"Championing LGBTQ issues in K-12 education since 1990.  Our mission is to create safe and affirming schools for all, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."

Human Rights Campaign 

"We need the Equality Act now!" 

H.R.5 in No Act of Equality

SIECUS 

"Sex Ed? It's a vehicle for social change."

 The Argument Against "Exploitation" 

CUSDWatch Comment

SEX Ed is being used as a vehicle for social change. A political movement that seeks to fundamentally transform America through the indoctrination of children using our public education system.

Political activists wrote the approved curriculums and any district that refuses to teach the approved curriculum is threatened with a law suit from the ACLU (a co-sponsor of AB 329)

California is the only state in the nation that does not allow parents to OPT OUT of "certain instruction".

AB 329

AB 329 Pupil Instruction: Sexual Health Education

In 2015 Shirly Weber (D) authored AB 329 making Sex Education Madatory in grades 7-12 as of January 1, 2016.

The bill was co-sponsored by  ACLU of CaliforniaCalifornia Latinas for Reproductive Justice,  Equality CaliforniaForward Together and Planned Parent Affiliates of California

The law was modified by Ed Code Sections 51930  and  51939.

CUSDWatch Comment

AB 329 was authored in 2015.

January 1, 2016 the instruction was mandated in graded 7-12.

Then the CDE began the process of writing the content standards and curriculum frameworks. 

The public was never provided with an opportunity to reveiw content prior to the law passing. That speaks volumes about its "benefit" to children. This is not how normal curriculums are developed. 

 
THE CALIFORNIA CURRICULUM

California Approved Curriculums

ASHWG Adolescent Sexual Health Working Group

Approved Middle School Curriculums

FLASH ($49/year/teacher + $89 - $99 per binder) by Seattle & King County Department of Public Health 

TEEN TALK ($145- $215) by Health Connected

POSITIVE PREVENTION PLUS ($279) by Kim Robert Clark, DrPH, MPH and Christine Janet Ridley, RN, MEd

RIGHTS, RESPECT, RESPONSIBILITY  (FREE) by Elizabeth Schroeder, EdD, MSW, Eva S. Goldfarb, PhD, Nora Gelperin M.Ed

MAKING PROUD CHOICES - CA Edition ($648) by Loretta Sweet Jemmott, PhD, RN, FAAN, John B. Jemmott III, PhD, Konstance A. McCaffree, PhD, CSE, Pammala Wilson, MSW

Approved High School Curriculums

FLASH ($49/year/teacher + $89 - $99 per binder) by Seattle & King County Department of Public Health 

TEEN TALK ($145- $215) by Health Connected

POSITIVE PREVENTION PLUS ($279) by Kim Robert Clark, DrPH, MPH and Christine Janet Ridley, RN, MEd

RIGHTS, RESPECT, RESPONSIBILITY  (FREE) by Elizabeth Schroeder, EdD, MSW, Eva S. Goldfarb, PhD, Nora Gelperin M.Ed

MAKING PROUD CHOICES - CA Edition ($648) by Loretta Sweet Jemmott, PhD, RN, FAAN, John B. Jemmott III, PhD, Konstance A. McCaffree, PhD, CSE, Pammala Wilson, MSW

BE REAL. BE READY (FREE) Adolescent Health Work Group (AHWG), Adolescent Health Education Collaborative (AHEC), for San Francisco Unified School District

"Fisting" and "Blood Play"

Fisting and Blood Play are now being taught in CA public high schools as part of the AB 329 State mandated curriculums.

Screen_Shot_2019-05-15_at_7.28.55_AM.png

"Deeper Manual Sex" aka "Fisting"

Screen_Shot_2019-05-15_at_7.33.19_AM_copy_copy.png

 

PROMOTING ANAL SEX AS A MEANS OF PREVENTING TEEN PREGNANCY

 

"Body Fluid" or "Blood Play"

blood.gif

Promoting Vegetables as Sex Toys Screen_Shot_2019-02-08_at_6.26.21_AM.png

 

Gender Fluidity

CUSDWatch Comment

AB 329 only madates instruction in grades 7-12. So why is the instruction being taught in grades pre-K - 6th?

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  

Gender Identity Lesson for Kindergartners? 

Transgender Reveal Debate Rocklin Gateway Academy 

Discussion: What is the right age to begin discussions of Gender Identity.

UCLA Study reveals that more than 1/4 of California students between the ages of 12 - 17 now identify themselves as gender non-conforming. 

20.8% identify themselves as Androgynous.

6.2% identify as Highly Gender Nonconforming

UCLA Study Age of Individuals who identify as Transgender in the United States

The number of adults that identify as transgender (gender does not match the sex they were assigned at birth) has doubled in the last 10 years from 0.3% to 0.6%. 

CUSDWatch Comment

It appears that less than 1% of the population is "born" transgender. In a flawed attempt to teach tolerance for a very small minority of the population, California has succeeded in confusing 26% of children 12-17 years of age who now identify themselves as gender non-conforming. 

Reseach has shown that transgender and gender non-conforming teens have more physical health issues, engage in more risky behaviors and have greater long-term mental health issues.

So why does California want to encourage gender confusion? 

Shouldn't parents have the right to protect children from instruction that could increase the likelyhood that they will engage in risky behaviors which may result in physical and mental health issues? 

This debate should have happened before AB 329 was ever passed into law.  

 

Teaching 4th and 5th grade girls about their G Spots 

1Screen-Shot-2019-05-18-at-2.58.gif

"Some of us start masterbating when we're children and continue to do so all of our lives."

1Screen-Shot-2019-05-18-at-3.00.gif

"Having fantasies about sex and masterbating are against some people's religious or moral beliefs, however, Personally, we think masturbation is good for you."

Screen-Shot-2019-05-18-at-3.18.gif

How Many Genders Are There

Drag Queen Story Hour 

"Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real."

Screen-Shot-2019-05-19-at-5.41.gif

Grooming the next generation 

The Houston Public Library admitted that one of its"Drag Queen Storytime storytellers was a registered sex offernder. 

 The Gender Bread Person

Screen-Shot-2019-05-19-at-9.58.gif

Gender Identity- Gender Expression - Biological Sex - Sexual Orientation

 

 

 

 
 
THE OPT OUT LANGUAGE IS INTENTIONALLY CONFUSING

Parents can Opt Out of "Comprehensive Sexual Health Education"

Parents can Opt Out of "Comprehensive Sexual Health Education" which is defined as instruction "regarding human development and sexuality, including education on pregnancy, contrception, and sexually transmitted infections". 51931(b)

Parents cannot OPT OUT of Instruction on Gender Identity

You cannnot OPT OUT of "instruction", materials, presentations, or programming that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family and do not discuss reproductive organs." Ed Code 51932(b)

CUSDWatch Comment

When instruction embeds graphic sexual content into topics related to gender, bullying and sexual orientation, a parent cannot OPT their child OUT of the instruction.

The problem is the text books on these subjects (which are now embeded in all subject areas) contain the content that many parents feel is not "age appropriate" or "medically accurate". Textbooks are being rewritten to embed gender identity into all subjects...  science, history, english, social studies and on and on.

The text books and curriculums that are now being approved are not in compliance with the law because they show descriptions or illustrations of human reproductive organs, and teach stdents how to engage in varying sexual activity which violate the spirit of the law regarding parental rights to OPT OUT (Ed Code 51932)

This "political movement" is not about promoting healthy lifestyles for children. The approved curriculums are not "medically accurate" nor are they "age appropriate". Many of the instructional materials provide instruction that encourages and teaches students how to engage in risky behaviors that can actually harm them. 

Oange County Department of Education Legal Department Interperts the OPT OUT

OCDE Legal Memo re: OPT OUT of California Healthy Youth Act

Memo March 29, 2018 

CUSDWatch Comment

Why is OCDE just discussing AB 329 two years after the law went into effect? I attended the April 11, 2018 OCDE Board of Trustees meeting and that Board had never heard of AB 329 before. It appears that the OCDE Superintendent started the implementation of AB 329 on his own, without Board approval. Come to find out, the Superintendent is an elected official. He does not work nder the direction of the Board of Trustees, and as such does not need Board approval to act. So what is the point of having a Board of Trustees at OCDE? As an example of how bad legislation is enacted without Board approval see: CUSD to Join California's War on Charter Schools.

CONCLUSION

In Summary, the California Healthy Youth Act does not allow a parent to excuse their child from instruction that discusses gender, gender identity, gender expression,and sexual orientation, when the disucussion does not discuss reproductive organs and their functions. In addition, the courts have held that parents do not have the constitutional right to override the determinations of the state legislature or the school district as to what information their children will be provided in the public school classroom.

CUSDWatch Comment

Maybe it is time to defund Public Education at the State Level and go back to smaller "locally funded" districts where the People will have a say in what their children are being taught.

 

The California Legislative Process is Broken

In Orange County we elect both the Orange County Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Orange County Department of Education Board of Trustees. As such, the Board has no real authority over the Superintendents actions. 

Statutory Functions of County Boards of Education & County Superintendents of Schools.

I. GOVERNANCE

"The county superintendent and the county board of education have separate duties and responsibilities. This is true whether the superintendent is separately elected, as in most counties, or appointed by the board, as in a few counties.

County superintendents of schools are established pursuant to Section 3, Article IX of the California Constitution and are considered county officers (similar to a sheriff, district attorney, or clerk). (Gov. Code § 24000.) County boards of education are established by Education Code section 1000. The interaction between the county board and superintendent is entirely distinct from the relationship of a school district governing board and its employed superintendent.

The county superintendent works directly with the school districts in the county to provide support and guidance for their operations. Policy determinations regarding school districts are made by the superintendent and the local school boards. The county board of education does not have a role in determining the policies of local school districts.

A wide variety of practices and policies have developed in the different counties to enable the county board and county superintendent to work cooperatively. In those counties where both offices are duly elected, each is directly accountable to the electorate. Open communication and mutual sharing of information facilitate the respective functions of the county superintendent and the board."

CUSDWatch Comment

In Orange County the Superintendent does not "openly communicate" with Trustees which is how OC Districts were able to pilot and implement AB 329 without the Orange County Department of Education's Boards knowledge or approval.

POLITICAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS, FOUNDATIONS AND BIG EDUCATION BUISNESSES RUN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA

TAXPAYERS HAVE NO REPRESENTATION

CUSDWatch Comment

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 EDUCATION COALITION

Funded by Union Dues, Association Fees and education spending on professional development.

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_6.56.14_AM.png Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.14.47_AM.png 
 Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.02.16_AM.png Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.17.28_AM.png  
Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.08.26_AM.png  Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.14.10_AM.png
Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.09.23_AM.png Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.19.31_AM.png
Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.10.56_AM.png   
 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.34.18_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_12.25.50_PM.png

Website

The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (“Collaborative”) is established by the California Legislature by the enactment of Education Code section 52074,as part of the Local Control Funding Formula legislation (AB 97 [Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013; as amended by SB 97, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2013; and SB 858 Chapter 32, Statutes of 2014]).

 
 
 THE CDE FOUNDATION

Non Profit that brings in donations to fund: Common Core - Healthy Kids - Steam - Labor Management Initiative - the LCAP and many more

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_5.17.21_PM.png

CUSDWatch Comment

Why does the California Department of Education need a foundation?

 

 

 These entities communicate directly with the Superintendent at the County Departments of Education- circumventing the Board of Trustees at the County Departments of Education  
  
 The Superintendent at the County Department of Education dictates advocacy and policy to individual school districts through a districts Staff and Superinttendent- circumventing the Board of Trustees at the District level.

It is a closed system with NO real public input.

CUSDWatch Comment

Public debate on a piece of legislation should happen BEFORE it is passed. 

The most recent example of how this works:

Timeline: AB 1505 Anti- Charter School Bill

February 22, 2019 AB 1505 Introduced
March 14, 2019 AB 1505 Amended
April 1, 2019 AB 1505 Amended
April 9, 2019 OCDE Superintendent Al Mijares e-mails OC Districts and asks them to approve a Resolution in SUPPORT OF AB 1505 prior to OCDE BOT taking any action to support or oppose AB 1505
April 10, 2019  OCDE Board of Trustees Meeting Agenda Item #2 Trustees vote to approve Resolution #08-19 in OPPOSITION to AB 1505  The Board agenda did not contain the actual language of AB 1505
April 10, 2019 

CTA puts out the following Statement: 

Legislative Leaders, Joined by Parents, Educators, School Boards and Labor Partners, Announce a Bill Calling for a 5-year Moratorium on New Charter Schools in California

April 11, 2019 AB 1505 Amended
April 23, 2019 Laguna Beach Unified School District BOT meeting Agenda Item #19 Approval of Letter in Support of AB 1505 (O'Donnell) Relating to Charter Schools page 117 Board Audio The Board unanimously approved the Resolution in SUPPORT of AB 1505 without discussion.
April 25, 2019 AB 1505 Amended Again! What is Laguna Beach actually "Supporting"
Why was Superintendent Al Mijares asking for letters in SUPPORT of AB 1505 prior to the OCDE Board taking a position on this? Laguna Beach approved Legislation with April 11, 2019 Amendments- not April 25, 2019 amendments.  

 

Timeline: AB 329 California Healthy Youth Act

February 13, 2015 AB 29 Introduced
June 6, 2015 AB 329 Passes in the Assembly
September 11, 2015 AB 329 Passes in the Senate
October 1, 2015 The Governor signs AB 329 into law
January 1, 2016 AB 329 takes effect mandating Comprehensive Sexual Health Education in Grades 7-12
Spring 2016 PFLAG member partcicpated in the CUSD's District Education Equity Advisory Committee 
December 14, 2016

At the December 14, 2016 CUSD BOT meeting the Capistrano Unified School District approves Teen Talk as the instructional materials recommended for a pilot program "Secondary sexual health education, grade 7-8"

See: CUSDWatch Board Meeting Review and Audio for Agenda Item #33

Please note the following Trustee comments on the record:

Board Audio Discussion begins at 2:28:05

at 2:32:56 Trustee Reardon:  Has this material actually been reviewed by the IMRC Instructional Materials Review Committee?
 
Trustee McNicholas: I am on that Committee and I have not seen it. 
Trustee Reardon: Was this curriculum presented to the Committee? 
Trustee McNicholas: I believe so, but I have been derelict in my duties.
 
The Board Agenda states that it was submitted to the IMRC but Staff would not confirm that when asked (so the answer is probably not).
February 9, 2017

CUSD's 2nd Annual School Counselor Showcase Flyer

PFLAG acted as a resource.

February 28, 2017  

CUSD Grade 8 teachers participated in a professional learning opportunity to receive the necessary support to deliver the curriculum scheduled for late May 2017. Grade 7 teachers would participate in April 2017.

March 20, 2017

CUSD Marc Patterson, Assistant Superintendent Secondary Curriculum and Rebecca Friedland, Interim Science Curriculum Specialist met with teachers in both grades to determine activities that will be taught in which grade level. 

It was noted that "The committee will discuss topics that may be too controversial and potentially not age appropriate for middle school students."

April 24, 2017 CUSD met with PFLAG South Orange County members. PFLAG will provide CUSD with a revised copy of their "Counseling LGBTQ Resource Guide". Once received CUSD intended to provide the guide to each school counselor as a focus of their June 2017 professional learning.
January 24, 2018

January 24, 2018 CUSD BOT Meeting Agenda Item #35 FIRST READING BOARD POLICY 6146.1 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS- CA Healthy Youth Act

Board Meeting Agenda at page 736

Board Audio Discussion begins at 1:54:15

Of Note Board Audio 2:51:11

 

CUSDWatch Comment

These entities direct laws and educational policy changes that are enacted through an "elected" County Superintendent without the County Board of Trustees approval.

The Result:

The Superintendent sends a letter to every district asking them to approve a resolution in support of [insert name of bad law here] 

after

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 EDUCATION COALITION

Education Coalition: United for California's Children

"California State PTA is a member of the Education Coalition: a group of major statewide associations representing teachers, administrators, school employees and districts that work together on state-budget and school-funding issues. PTA is the sole organization representing parents on the coalition."

CUSDWatch Comment

Translation of "PTA is the sole organization representing parents on the coalition", means that parents have no representation. The PTA has been transformed from a student advocacy organization to the fundrasining arm of the teachers union in most school districts which is another reason why parents and the public learn about issues facing thier children "After-the-Fact".

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_6.56.14_AM.png

Website

Association of California School Administrators

Monthly "donations" are taken from school administrators pay - just like paying "union" dues.

ACSA raises revenue from professional development also paid by districts using classroom dollars.

ACSA OneVoice Legislative Platform 2019-20

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.02.16_AM.png

Website

California County Superintendents Educational Services Association

School districts pay for employee memberships in this "association" using classroom dollars.

"Through a system of 11 service regions, CCSESA provides the organizational mechanism for the 58 County Superintendents of Schools to design and implement statewide programs to identify and promote quality cost-effective educational practices and services, and provide support to school districts."

Legislative Platform

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.08.26_AM.png

California Teachers Association

Website

Union Dues are used to support political  positions and elect candidates.

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.09.23_AM.png

California School Boards Association

Website

School districts pay for employee memberships in this "association" using classroom dollars.

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.10.56_AM.png

California School Employees Association

Website

Union Dues are used to support political  positions and elect candidates.

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.14.47_AM.png

California Federation of Teachers

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.17.28_AM.png

Service Employees International Union 

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.14.10_AM.png

Parent Teachers Association 

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.19.31_AM.png

California Association of School Business Officials 

 

 

THE CDE FOUNDATION

Brought California Public Education the following programs and initiatives:

CALIFORNIA COMMON CORE | CALIFORNIA STEAM SYMPOSIUM | HEALTHY KIDS (aka AB 329 SEX ED) | CALIFORNIA LABOR MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE | CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT | CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS | FAMILY ENGAGEMENT & THE LCAP | COLLABORATION IN COMMON |

CALIFORNIA COMMON CORE

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.02.18_AM.png

CDE Foundation

Californian's Dedicated to Education

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_6.56.14_AM.png

Association of California School Administrators

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.02.16_AM.png

California County Superintendents Educational Services Association

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.14.47_AM.png

California Federation of Teachers

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.09.23_AM.png

California School Boards Association

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.08.26_AM.png

California Teachers Association

 

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.13.02_AM.pngLos Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

 

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.14.10_AM.png

Parent Teachers Association 

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.17.04_AM.png

California School Public Relations Association 

 
  

THE CALIFORNIA LABOR MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE 

CUSDWatch Comment

The UNION of all UNIONS. Our school districts use student money to pay for these conferences where they are taught how to use the public education system to fundamentally transform America into a socialist/communist/marxist society. 

In 2008 without any public input, Governor Brown chose to modle the California public education system after Michael Fullan's Canadian Modle of education. 

Stratigic Plan 2018 - 2020

2019 Summer Institute Pre- Conference

The pre-conference will provide an overview of the three key frameworks used by the CA LMI.  

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_6.56.14_AM.png

Association of California School Administrators

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.02.16_AM.png

California County Superintendents Educational Services Association

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.34.18_AM.png

The California Department of Education

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.35.40_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.09.23_AM.png

California School Boards Association

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.10.56_AM.png

California School Employees Association

 

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_7.08.26_AM.png

California Teachers Association

 

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_11.02.18_AM.png

CDE Foundation

Californian's Dedicated to Education

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_12.25.50_PM.png

California Collaborative for Education Excellence

 

 

Screen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_12.34.54_PM.pngScreen_Shot_2019-05-20_at_12.35.04_PM.png

Steering Committee:

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

  • Association of California School Administrators (ACSA)
  • California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE)
  • California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA)
  • California Department of Education (CDE)
  • California Federation of Teachers (CFT)
  • California School Boards Association (CSBA)
  • California School Employees Association (CSEA)
  • California Teachers Association (CTA)

Key State Leaders in Labor-Management and District Support

  • Ray Gaer, President, ABC Federation of Teachers
  • Mary Sieu, Superintendent, ABC Unified
  • Shannan Brown, Director, California Teacher Union Reform Network (CalTURN)

 

  

     
     

 

 

 

 

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 & HIV/AIDS Instruction

“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.

CUSDWatch Comment

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

CUSD Comprehensive Sexual Health Education 

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. 

CUSDWatch Comment: 

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. 

See: CUSDWatch: New Law Forces Schools to Release Students from School Without Parental Consent.

See: CUSD March 14, CUSD BOT Meeting Agenda Item #22 Board Presentation - California Healthy Youth Act 

Board Audio at 3:39:32 Trustee Jim Reardon regarding Planned Parenthoods access to stduents.

  

 

 https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/1014/4906/8078/Inclusive_Sex_Education.pdf

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5814/0051/4534/ARM_Manual.pdf

Dawn Urbanek | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | If you find this research valuable, please consider a donation to The Equity Project

 

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

Source: http://ias.cde.ca.gov/lcffsnapshot/lcff.aspx

  Base Grant Supplemental Grant Concentration Grant Add On Funding Total Funding Enrollment Per Pupil Funding
2018-19 $390,722,569  $20,247,244 0  $4,582,808 $415,552,621 46,638 $8,910
2017-18 $378,277,567  $18,641,519  0  $4,582,808 $401,501,894 46,905 $8,560
2016-17 $378,193,999  $17,608,713  0  $4,582,808 $400,385,520 47,652 $8,402
2015-16  $383,786,887  $18,021,787  0  $4,582,808 $406,373,482 48,385  $8,398
2014-15 $384,774,862 $18,122,896 0 $4,582,808 $407,480,566 49,004 $8,315
2013-14 $383,008,217 $18,369,075 0 $4,582,808 $405,960,100 49,223 $8,247
Unduplicated Pupil Percentage (UPP) [percentage of students that are English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced lunch and/or are in Foster Care. 25.91%

  

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

https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/19-AIR-PJP-Report(3-07).pdf at page Xiii

 

How Much Money Has Been Withheld from CUSD since 2013-14?

$790 Million to $1.18 Billion Dollars 

ASSUME BASE GRANT $8,923  Actual Base Grant Minimum Base Grant  $8,932 Difference Enrollment State Revenue withheld from CUSD because of the unfair funding formula
2013-14 $7,781 $8,923  $1,142 49,223 $56,212,666
2014-15  $7,852   $1,071 49,004   $52,483,284
2015-16 $7,931 $992 48,385 $47,997,920
2016-17 $7,937 $986 47,652 $46,984,872
2017-18 $8,065 $858 46,905 $40,244,490
2018-19 $8,338 $585 46,638 $27,283,230
Total Withheld $271,206,462

 

ASSUME BASE GRANT $10,726  Actual Base Grant Minimum Base Grant   $8,932 Difference Enrollment State Revenue withheld from CUSD because of the unfair funding formula
2013-14 $7,781 $10,726  $2,945 49,223 $144,961,735
2014-15  $7,852  $2,874 49,004  $140,837,496
2015-16 $7,931 $2,795 48,385 $135,236,075
2016-17 $7,937 $2,789 47,652 $132,901,428
2017-18 $8,065 $2,661 46,905 $124,814,205
2018-19 $8,338 $2,388 46,638 $111,371,544
Total Withheld $790,122,483

 

ASSUME BASE GRANT $10,726  Actual Base Grant Minimum Base Grant  $8,932 Difference Enrollment State Revenue withheld from CUSD because of the unfair funding formula
2013-14 $7,781 $12,077   $4,296 49,223 $211,462,008
2014-15  $7,852   $4,225 49,004  $207,041,900
2015-16 $7,931  $4,146 48,385 $200,604,210
2016-17 $7,937 $4,140  47,652 $197,279,280
2017-18 $8,065 $4,012  46,905 $188,182,860
2018-19 $8,338  $3,739 46,638 $174,379,482
Total With Held $1,178,949,740

 

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.

Local School Facility Bond Debt $168 billion dollars
2001  $2,211,840,000 CUSDWatch: 2001 School Facility Bond Measures
2002  $14,915,973,264  CUSDWatch: 2002 School Facility Bond Measures
2003  $501,700,000  CUSDWatch: 2003 School Facility Bond Measures
2004  $11,409,724,707  CUSDWatch: 2004 School Facility Bond Measures
2005  $6,295,530,000  CUSDWatch: 2005 School Facility Bond Measures
2006  $11,458,770,000  CUSDWatch: 2006 School Facility Bond Measures
2007  $1,515,900,000  CUSDWatch: 2007 School Facility Bond Measures
2008  $27,366,794,012  CUSDWatch: 2008 School Facility Bond Measures
2009  $73,200,000  CUSDWatch: 2009 School Facility Bond Measures
2010  $4,681,910,000  CUSDWatch: 2010 School Facility Bond Measures
2011  $1,014,100,000  CUSDWatch: 2011 School Facility Bond Measures
2012  $14,796,051,109  CUSDWatch: 2012 School Facility Bond Measures
2013  $317,800,000  CUSDWatch: 2013 School Facility Bond Measures
2014  $11,018,095,000  CUSDWatch: 2014 School Facility Bond Measures
2015  $1,143,025,000  CUSDWatch: 2015 School Facility Bond Measures
2016  $29,062,625,672  CUSDWatch: 2016 School Facility Bond Measures
2017  $154,900,000  CUSDWatch: 2017 School Facility Bond Measures
2018  $30,516,636,058  CUSDWatch: 2018 School Facility Bond Measures
Total

$168,454,574,822

Repayment

$337 billion +

$168 billion is 83% of California's Total $201 billion dollar budget. The terms of most Prop 39 bonds is 40 years. The $168 billion represents principal only. Total re-payment will be at least $337 billion.

 

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.

 

Orange County

2018-19 Adopted Budget 
$6.47 Billion

Local School Facility Bond Debt 
$9.1 Billion 

Population 3.19 million  

2018 $329,000,000
2017   -0-
2016   $2,790,849,999
2015   -0-
2014   $791,000,000
2013   -0-
2012   $1,366,750,000
2011  -0-
2010  $435,600,000
2009 -0- 
2008  $829,535,000
2007  -0-
2006  -0-
2005  $282,000,000
2004  $814,000,000
2003  -0-
2002  $1,425,140,000
2001  -0-
Total $9,063,874,999

 

 

Los Angeles County

2018-19 Adopted Budget 
$32,799 Billion

Local School Facility Bond Debt 
$44.8 Billion

Population 10.16 million

2018  $4,845,970,000
2017   -0-
2016  $9,378,880,000 
2015   -0-
2014   $1,497,300,000
2013   $110,000,000
2012   $2,371,110,000
2011  $270,000,000
2010  $299,000,000
2009  -0-
2008  $701,140,000
2007  $319,700,000
2006  $1,430,100,000
2005  $4,066,310,000
2004  $12,811,380,000
2003  $26,200,000
2002  $5,550,466,464
2001  $1,122,220,000
Total  $44,799,776,464

 

 San Diego County

2018-19 Adopted Budget 
$6.26 Billion

Local School Facility Bond Debt 
$17 Billion

Population 3.338 million

2018 $2,539,500,000
2017   $149,000,000
2016   $1,647,000,000
2015  $350,000,000
2014    $315,850,000
2013   -0-
2012  $3,854,400,000
2011 -0-
2010  $338,8000,000
2009  -0-
2008  $564,500,000
2007  -0-
2006  $2,466,000,000
2005  $17,000,000
2004  $557,600,000
2003  -0-
2002  1,171,300,000
2001  -0-
Total  $17,020,150,000

 

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? 

California Budget: 2007-08 and 2019-20

California Budget

The State of California

Has Increased Revenues by 

$66 Billion since 2007-08.

Any new revenues for employee compensation increases must come from Sacramento not CUSD taxpayers.

 

 

 

 

2019-20 $209,069,327 
2018-19 190,319,420 
2017-18 179,450,102 
2016-17 170,727,252 
2015-16 164,703,066 
2014-15 154,937,996 
2013-14 145,826,550 
2012-13 137,327,827 
2011-12 127,370,952 
2010-11 118,755,483 
2009-10 134,764,078 
2008-09 141,038,573 
2007-08 143,408,832 

 

 

April 28, 2019

Corice ("Cori") Farrar
Chief, Orange & Riverside Counties Section
South Coast Branch
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
(Please note we have no auto-reply for out-of-office notification.) 
 
Office: 213-452-3296
Government Mobile: 213-309-4862
 
http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx 

 

sent via e-mail April 28, 2019

 

Ms. Farrar-

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.

Comment 1:

"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

June 13, 2006 TCA submitted an application for Clean Water Act section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 from Oso Parkway to the I-5 at the San Diego/Orange County line.
February 23, 2006 TCA submitted a final subsequent EIR and Notice of Determination which concluded that the impacts to wildlife, fisheries and vegetation could not be mitigated to less than significant levels.

DENIED

February 6, 2008 

On February 6, 2008, the San Diego Regional Water Board denied TCA's permit.

DENIED

February 6, 2008 

The California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) also rejected the toll road extension due to its recreational impacts to San Onofre State Park and San Mateo Creek, water quality effects, wetland impacts, and impacts to other environmental resources.
 DENIED

February 6, 2008 

TCA appealed the Coastal Commission's objection to the United States Secretary of Commerce. After holding its own public hearing, the Secretary of Commerce rejected the appeal, finding, among other things, that less environmentally damaging alternatives were available to meet the project need.
February 9, 2009 TCA formally withdrew their application.
August 10, 2012  On August 10, 2012, TCA filed a a new application with the San Diego Water Board for an initial segment of the toll road. This would extend SR 241 from its existing southern terminus at Oso Parkway approximately 5.5 miles south to Cow Camp Road in the vicinity of Ortega Highway (SR 74) in Orange County 

DENIED

June 19, 2013

A majority of San Diego Water Board members voted to deny TCA's permit.

July 19, 2013  TCA submitted an appeal of the denial to the State Water Board. 

June 12, 2014 

STUCK- The Parties come up with a new plan to have Rancho Mission Viejo build the Toll Road for them using it's 401 Wastewater Discharge Permit for "F" Street aka Los Patrones a free arterial highway in the event their appeal is denied.

On June 12, 2014, the TCA approved an Option Agreement with Developer [Rancho Mission Viejo] for an alignment for TEx. [the Tesoro Extension of SR-241]  The TCA also authorized its Executive Director to confirm to the County of Orange (County) that it has authorized and is in support of the proposed Agreement for Grant of Fee Credits in accordance with the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program.  On June 13, 2014, the County received a letter from the TCA Acting Chief Executive Officer confirming this position.

Agenda Staff Report

Attachment A - Agreement for Grant of Fee Credits

Exhibit A - Grant Deed to County of Orange

Exhibit B - Irrevocable Offer to Convey

June 24, 2014

Orange County Board of Supervisors approved Agenda Item #25

25. Approve agreement D14-034 with RMV Community Development LLC for Transportation Corridor Agency fee credits for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program; authorize Director or designee to carry out terms of agreement and execute related documents; approve grant deed, Irrevocable Offer to Convey Real Property and Memorandum of Fee Credit agreement from Rancho Mission Viejo, LLC for right of way purposes of "F" Street; authorize Director or designee to execute related documents and necessary amendments; and find that Environmental Impact Report 589 previously certified by the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 2004 satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act - District 5

September 23, 2014  The State Water Board remanded the matter back to the San Diego Water Board with direction

DENIED

November 24, 2014

Rancho Mission Viejo files an incomplete application for a 401 waste Water Discharge Permit for "F" Street aka Los Patrones Parkway as a free arterial road.

DENIED

March 16, 2015

The permit was denied again. TCA has no permission to build south of Oso Parkway. 
April 9, 2015 Rancho Mission Viejo completes its application for a 401 waste Water Discharge Permit for "F" Street aka Los Patrones Parkway as a free arterial road. 

So the TCA - the County of Orange and Rancho Mission Viejo Pivot to the Ranch Permit for "F" Street aka Los Patrones a FREE ARTERIAL ROAD.

At the same time they initiated a new EIR for Affordable Housing that showed their true intent which was to build only one alignment from the terminus of SR-241 at Oso Parkway to Pico in three segments.

This EIR was signed by Rose Fistrovic on May 15, 2015

The Water Board Permit granted to Rancho Mission Viejo as a private entity building a FREE ARTERIAL ROAD was signed by the Water Board on June 4, 2015

June 4, 2015

The San Diego Water Board "administratively approves" Rancho Mission Viejo's permit for "F" Street aka Los Patrones Parkway as a free arterial road and expressly states:

"F" Street is not the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 that was denied waste water discharge requirements by the San Diego Water Board in 2013 (proceeding on Tentative Order R9-2013-0007) or a facility related to SR-241 and the Tesoro Extension is not covered by this Certification. "F" Street will be operated by the County of Orange as a free road." 

However, contained within the permit was permission to do the grading and Wastewater Discharge south of Oso Parkway between the on and off ramps of Los Patrones Parkway. So in essence- the TCA used Rancho Mission Viejo's permit for Los Patrones to do the same work that has been denied all along. TCA/CalTRANS should have been named on this Permit. 

The projects that were actually built under this permit were:

1. Oso Bridge Project

2. "F'" Street aka Los Patrones Parkway Project  Tesoro Extension of SR-241 with modifications

3. The Oso Bridge Gap Closure Project 

These 3 projects are really the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 with modifications.

Rancho Mission Viejo had an obligation to disclose all of the following Agreements to the Water Board because a decision on the Ranch Permit was still under review.

(1) Agreement for Grant of Fee Credits

(2) Grant Deed to County of Orange

(3) Irrevocable Offer to Convey

and  

The July 18, 2006, Affordable Housing Agreement was approved pursuant to the Development Agreement for the Ranch Plan 

Rancho Mission Viejo only disclosed Agreement for Grant Fee Credits and not the property offers.

Was the San Diego Regional Water Board complicit in this "arrangement"?

It appears that the San Diego Water Board administratively approved 401 Wastewater Discharge Permit R9-2014-0144 granted to Rancho Mission Viejo (a private entity) to build what is actually the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 with modifications, and did so behind closed doors in violation of the law and its own policies. As such, it appears individuals at the Water Board may have been part of the Collusion and Criminal Fraud to complete SR-241 from Oso Parkway to the I-5 at the San Diego/ Orange County line.

The Item was never placed on the Agenda. The Item was never placed on the Agenda as a consent Item. Item was never announced to the public.

The March 16, 2015 San Diego Regional Water Board meeting where the final denial was made had a large group of people that spoke in opposition to the TCA's appeal because the Item was listed as the "Tesoro Extension of SR-241 Toll Road" item.

The Rancho Mission Viejo permit was never on the San Diego Water Board meeting Agenda - not even on consent.

April 15, 2015 San Diego Water Board meeting had one consent item:

#6 Sycamore Land Fill

May 13, 2015 San Diego Water Board meeting there were no consent items.

On June 4, 2015 Rancho Mission Viejo's 401 Waste Water Discharge permit was granted. Administratively Approved behind closed doors with NO public input.

June 24, 2015 San Diego Water Board meeting there were 4 consent items:

# 6, 7, and 8 for Calmut Company

#9 for San Diego Ship Repair

The San Diego Regional Water Board failed to follow the law:

401 Wastewater Discharge Permit R9-2014-0144 contains the following language at page 24. 

Further documentation that shows the intent to continue to build the Tesoro Extension of SR -241 in segments to avoid CEQA and NEPA can be found in the Final Program EIR IP#15-157 SCH No. 2015051062 entitled Orange County Affordable Housing Implementation Plan- Ranch Plan dated November 2016.

at page 446

The parties admit that if the toll road option is built environmental studies result in the following potentially significant impacts.

Currently there is no environmental oversight of this project.

 
  

Comment 2

"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).

Source: Integrated Regional Water Management PLAN for South Orange County updated 2018

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.

Comment 3

"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.

Comment 4:

"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.

Comment 5:

"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 sent the following FOIA request on February 16, 2019 to Yolanda D. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. I was told to send it to the Carlsbad office not the LA Office. 

I have not received the documentation I requested to date.

 

Conclusion:

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. 

Source: Orange County Register- Spent nuclear waste burial halted at San Onofre until NRC can probe 'near miss' with canister

Thank you so much for your time and prompt response. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Dawn Urbanek,

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
 

2018 University of California

Total Nonresident International Student Enrollment

40,122 students

 

61% are from the People's Republic of China.

27% are from other parts of Asia and the Middle East

The Rest of the World is represented by 12% of the University of California's Total International Enrollment.

Source:

Data University of California Enrollment by Headcount 2018 Fall Enrollment for Nonresidential International Students is 45,461

Fall Enrollment at a Glance [Ethnicity]: Data for "Sending Countries for Nonresident International Students" shows records for 163 Countries totaling 40,122 students. 

That is a difference of 5,339 students

Of that 421 students have "unknown ethnicities"

Of that 4 students have Invalid codes

4,914 students cannot be accounted for. 


Source: 

University of California Undergraduate Admissions Summary

"UC was to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class." [1960 Master Plan page 1] That specifically excludes Transfer students as part of that count.

[2010 Accountability Report]

"UC has shrunk the size of the freshman class in response to state budget cuts, but those reductions have been partially offset by increases in the enrollment of new community college transfer students. In addition, UC has begun to increase the proportion of nonresident students at its campuses." [2011 Accountability Report page 1] 

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 International undergraduate enrollment be limited to 5%

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

3 YEARS AFTER AUDIT

AUDIT

       AUDIT YEARS         (2010-2014)

2018

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2017

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2016

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2015

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2014

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2013

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 46,677 46,006  47,479  41,556  41,568  39,964 
California Resident  

37,393   80%

 36,991    80%  38,938    82%  30,127 79.5%  34,202   82.3%  33,229   83.1%
  Private School 3,591 7.69%

3,512   7.6% 

3,746  7.9% 3,098   7.5%  3,185  7.7%  3,136  7.8% 
  Public School 33,802 72.4%

33,479   72.8% 

35,192  74.1%  29,729 71.5%  31,017 74.6%  30,093  75.3% 
Non-Resident  9,284 20%  9,016    19.5%  8,541   18%  8,489   20.5%  7,366    17.8%  6,755   16.9%
  Out-Of-State 4,298 9.2%  4,060  8.7% 3,569 7.5% 3,729 9%  3,348 8.1%  3,133 7.8% 
   International 4,986 10.7%  4.956 10.8%  4,972 10.5% 4,760 11.5%  4,018 9.7%  3,622  9.1% 

 

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

AUDIT YEARS

  

2012

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 38,731 36,343  32,422 34,242 36,538   35,251  
California Resident  

33,195 85.7%

32,223 88.7%  29,930   92.3%    32,391 94.6% 34,396 94.1%  33,497 95% 
  Private School 3,186

3,319

3,334 3,607 3,941 3,991
  Public School 30,009

28,904

26,596  28,784 30,455 29,506 
Non-Resident  5,536 14.3% 4120  11.3% 2,492  7.7%  1,841  5.4%  2,142   5.9%  1,754 5%
  Out-Of-State 2,575 (6.6%)  2,328 (6.4%) 1,574 (4.9%) 1,285 (3.8%) 1,501 (4.1%)  1,376 (3.9%)
   International 2,961 (7.6%) 1,792 (4.9%) 918 (2.8%) 556 (1.6%) 641 (1.8%) 378 (1.1%)

  

UC All Campuses 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment 35,328 31,464 29,545 31,866 31,514 30,495 
California Resident   33,523 94.9% 30,048 95.5%   28,095 95% 30,239 95%  29,784 94.5%  28,619 93.9% 
  Private School 4,015 3,695 3,549 3,934 3,861 3,771 
  Public School 29,508 26,353 24,546  26,305 25,923 24,848 
Non-Resident 1,805 5.1%  1,416 4.5%  1,450 5%  1,627 5%  1,730 5.5% 1,874  6.1%
  Out-Of-State 1,447 (4.1%) 1,176 (3.7%) 1,193 (4.1%) 1,353 (4.2%) 1,438 (4.5%) 1,578 (5.1%) 
  International 358 (1.01%)  240 (0.8%)  257 (0.9%) 274 (0.8%) 292 (1%) 296  (1%)

 

 

International 

Nonresident Students Asia

 30,271

66.59% 

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
China  24,387
South Korea 2,088
Taiwan 1,355
Indonesia 576
Japan 539
Vietnam 328
Malaysia 283
Singapore 277
Thailand  239
Phillippines 64
Myanmar  58
Macao 57
Cambodia 16
Brunei 3
North Korea 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Central Asia

 9 

<1%

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
Turkmenistan 3
Uzbekistan 3
Kyrgyzstan 2
Tajikistan 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students India

 3,356 

7.38%

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
India 2,994
Bangladesh (Bengali) 150
Pakistan 116
Sri Lanka 40
Nepal 30
Mongolia (Mongoi) 25
Maldives 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Middle East

 1,758 

3.87%

Ethnicity: US Census "White"
Iran (Persian) 556
Turkey (Turkish) 337
Israel (Jews) 74 
Baharan (Bahrani) 
Arab  391
Saudi Arabia (Arab) 223
Kuwait (Arab) 57 
Lebanon (Arab) 35
United Arab Emirates (Saudi Arabia) (Arab) 24
Jordan (Arab) 19
Iraq (Arab) 12
Oman (Arab) 5
Sudan (Arab) 5
Syria (Arab) 5
Qatar (Arab) 4
Palestine (Arab) 2

 

International 

Nonresident Students Africa

 247

<1%

Ethnicity: US Census "Black"
Nigeria 54
Kenya 35
South Africa 31
Ethiopia 16
Morocco 16
Ghana 15
Tunisia 9
Comoros 7
Rwanda 7
Cameroon 5
Cote D Ivoire 5
Botswana 5
Senegal 4
Sierra Leone 4
Uganda 4
Libya 4
Tanzania 3
Mauritius 3
Algeria 2
Congo (Brazzaville) 2
Zambia 2
Liberia 2
Benin 1
Burkina Faso 1
Eritrea 1
Gabon 1
Gambia 1
Guinea 1
Malawi 1
Mali 1
Mozambique 1
Niger 1
Togo 1
Zaire (Democratic republic of Congo 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students North America

Canada

 835

1.84% 

Ethnicity: White 
Candada 835

 

 

International 

Nonresident Students North America

Mexico

 351

<1% 

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino(a)
Mexico 351

 

International 

Nonresident Students Central America

 109

<1% 

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino(a)
Costa Rica  31 
Panama 13 
Guatemala 11
El Salvador  8
Bermuda 7
Jamaica 7
Dominican Republic 6
Honduras 6
Cuba 4
Belize 4
Saint Kitts 2
Haiti 2
Bahamas 2
Barbados 2
Antigua and Barbuda 1
Nicaragua 1
Grenada 1
St Vincent & St Thomas 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students South America

868 

1.91% 

   
Brazil 365
Chili 142
Columbia 123
Peru 72
Argentina 65
Ecuador 32
Venezuela 27
Trinidad & Tobago 19
Bolivia 8
Uruguay 7
Paraguay 5
Guyana 2
Suriname 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Europe

1,898

4.18% 

Ethnicity: White (US Census) 
United Kingdom 339
France  244
Italy 185
Spain 177
Germany 164
Russia 152
Greece 97
Portugal 53
Netherlands 49
Kazakhstan 41
Belgium 38
Switzerland 37
Sweden 31
Poland 22
Ukraine 22
Norway 21
Austria 21
Finland 19
Denmark 18
Bulgaria 17
Ireland 17
Armenia 16
Serbia 16
Cyprus 14
Hungary 14
Czech Republic 13
Albania 10
Croatia 8
Georgia  8
Iceland 7
Azerbaijan 6
Lithuania 6
Slovenia 6
Latvia 5
Macedonia 5
Belarus 3
Estonia 3
Slovakia 3
Bosnia-Herzegovina 3
Kosovo 2
Monaco 2
Montenegro 2
Luxembourg 1
Netherland - Antilies 1
Northern Ireland 1
Scotland 1
Serbia & Montenegro 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Oceana

 240

<1% 

Ethnicity: White 
Australia (White) 152
New Zealand (White) 85
Kiribati 2
Micronesia (White/Chamorro)  1

  

International students GPA are much lower than CA Residents

Source:

University of California Admission by Source School FR GPA by Year

 

 
 

Broken Promises 

Record Numbers of Highly Qualified California Students Are Not Being Admitted to the University of California

By Dawn Urbanek | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | The Equity Project|   

 

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.  

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA GROWTH IN ENROLLMENT 2011- PRESENT

Source: University of California Fall Enrollment at a Glance

  Total Enroll CA Resident Out of State International Other/ Unknown Undocumented?  
2011 231,268 231,268 (87%) 9,735 (4.2%) 15,561 (6.7%) 4,697 (2%)  
2012 233,198  199,013 (85.3%)  10,711 (4.6%)  18,681 (8%)  4,793 (2.1%)  Audit Period
2013 238,699  198,703 (83.2%)  12,298 (5.2%)  22,578 (9.5%)  5,120 (2.1%) 
2014 246,631  200,345 (81.2%)  13,668 (5.5%)  26,369 (10.7%)  6,249 (2.5%) 
2015 251,714 199,676 (79.33%) 14,703 (5.8%) 30,728 (12.2%) 6,607 (2.6%)  
2016 264,426 206,602 (78.1%) 15,862 (6%) 34,674 (13.1%) 7,324 (2.8%)  
2017 273,179 210,873 (77.2%) 16,281 (6%) 37,844 (13.9%) 8,181 (3%)  
2018 280,380 212,998 (76%) 18,353 (6.5%) 40,219 (14.3%) 8,810 (3.1%)  
While California Resident enrollment has declined from 231,268 in 2011 to 212,998 in 2018:
Out of State Students Have Almost Doubled since 2011
2011 9,735
2018 18,353
International Students  Have Almost Tripled since 2011
2011 15,561
2018 40,219
Other/Unknown aka "Undocumented" Students  Almost Doubled since 2011
2011 4,697
2018 8,810
 

Nonresident Students are "Crowding Out" California Students.

Despite the Auditors recommendation that nonresident enrollment be capped at 5% that number continues to climb, and in 2018 reached a high of 24% of the University of California's total enrollment. Each year the University of California continues to deny more qualified California students a seat at the University. Those that are given an admit are not guaranteed a seat at a campus of their choice, they are in many cases placed in a referral pool and then offered an admit to UC Merced as their only University of California option.

The 2015 Audit stated that 98% of California students that referred to UC Merced decline to enroll.

The 2017 data in from the LAO said that 98.9% of California students that referred to UC Merced decline to enroll.

The problem is getting worse every year. That is why the example student with a 4.2 GPA and a 32 SAT is no longer being admitted into any campus except UC Merced.

The University of California "Referral Pool"

Information on the actual number of students placed in the Referral Pool can only be obtained through a Public Records Request. Both the State Auditor and the LAO have stated that this information is not readily available to the Public.

In 2015 the Auditor stated that the number of students placed in the referral pool was 10,700 students.

The Auditor also stated that 98% of the students that were placed in the referral pool and only offered UC Merced did not enroll. That means 10,468 "Highly Qualified" California students were forced to go outside the UC system to find a comparable education. Ans did so at great increased expense to their families. 

California State Auditor Summary Results in Brief 2015 Audit

"Furthermore, over the past 10 years, the university began denying admission to an increasing number of residents to the campuses of their choice. If residents are eligible for admission to the university and are not offered admission to the campuses of their choice, the university offers them spots at an alternative campus through what it calls a referral process. In contrast, nonresidents, if admitted, are always admitted to at least one campus of their choice. Of particular concern is that, over the same time period, the university’s campuses denied admission to nearly 4,300 residents whose academic scores met or exceeded all of the median scores for nonresidents whom the university admitted to the campus of their choice. According to the university, the referral process is critical to it meeting its Master Plan commitment to admit the top 12.5 percent of residents. However, few of the residents whom the university admits and refers to an alternate campus ultimately enroll. In academic year 2014–15 for example, 55 percent of residents to whom the university offered admission to one of the campuses to which they applied enrolled, while only 2 percent of the 10,700 residents placed in the referral pool enrolled."

 

It is time for the State of California and the University of California to keep its promise to California's students and taxpayers that have paid taxes for many years to fund a world class education for their children.

The State of California is enjoying record high revenues of $209 billion. That is up from $143 billion in 2007-08 (the great recession). The State's number one Constitutionally mandated spending priority is Public Education. California has $55 billion that is currently budgeted for High Speed Rail.

The State of California has sufficient revenue to provide a seat for every qualified California resident, but is "choosing" to fund other programs and entitlements that are not Constitutionally mandated, such as High Speed Rail.

California Budget: 2007-08 and 2019-20

California 5-year Infrastructure Plan 

In 2018 the University of California "sold" 67,382 seats bringing in revenues of $5.206 billion. That is projected to increase to $5.269 billion in 2019 according to the LAO.

The 2019-20 Budget: Higher Education Analysis at page 35

"The increase in tuition and fee revenue is based on projected growth in nonresident enrollment coupled with a proposed increase in nonresident supplemental tuition. The Governor ties his proposed General Fund increase to UC not  increasing resident tuition or the Student Services Fee in 2019-20"

This means that less California students will be admitted to a UC in 2019, but tuition for those that are admitted will not increase (an indication that the University of California does not intend to honor its promise to California's Class of 2020).

The University of California justifies the need to increase Out of State and International enrollment in order to increase "diversity". 

Example of a Student who was denied a seat at a flagship school (UC Berkeley or a UCLA) but was referred to UC Merced as their only choice.

  Example Student Profile Profile of Admitted UC Merced Freshman
High School GPA 4.2 3.46-3.96
SAT  32 19-27

 

The example student applied to UC Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD and UC Santa Barbara.

This student was denied an admit to all four campuses, and was placed into a referral pool and offered UC Merced as their only UC option. 

UC Merced is not an "appropriate placement" for a California student with this GPA and Test Score.

This student was accepted into highly competitive Private Universities and Out of State schools and therefore did not enroll into UC Merced. 10,000 other California residents were placed in the same position as a result of the UC's failure to give California residents enrollment priority.

Any student in this position should appeal the University of California's decision because the State of California has promised an "appropriate placement" to all qualified California residents in the top 12.5% of the State. 

University of California Freshman Class Profiles:

University of California Freshman Class Profiles:

Fall 2018 (Class of 2018)

GPA 4.16 - 4.30

ACT 30 - 35

SAT English 660 - 750

SAT Math 680 - 790

The Example Student is "Qualified" to attend UC Berkeley.

Fall 2018 (Class of 2018)

GPA 3.97 - 4.25

ACT 24-31

SAT English 600 - 700

SAT Math 620 - 780

The Example Student is "Qualified" to attend UCLA.

 

Fall 2018 (Class of 2018)

GPA 4.02 - 4.28

ACT 28 - 34

SAT English 640 - 730

SAT Math 660 - 790

The Example Student is "Qualified" to attend UC San Diego.

Fall 2018 (Class of 2018)

GPA 4.00 - 4.26

ACT 26-33

SAT English 600 - 710

SAT Math 630 -780

The Example Student is "Qualified" to attend UC Irvine.

  

Fall 2018 (Class of 2018)

GPA 4.00 - 4.26

ACT 28 - 31

SAT English 630 - 720

SAT Math 640 -780

The Example Student is "Qualified" to attend UC Santa Barbara.

 

Fall 2018 (Class of 2018)

GPA 4.00 - 4.26

ACT 28 - 31

SAT English 630 - 720

SAT Math 640 -780

The Example Student is "Qualified" to attend UC Davis.

 

Fall 2018 (Class of 2018)

GPA 3.97 - 4.25

ACT 26 - 33

SAT English 600 - 700

SAT Math 620 -780

The Example Student is "Qualified" to attend UC Davis.

 

Fall 2018 (Class of 2018)

GPA 3.76 - 4.16

ACT 24 - 30

SAT English 590 - 700

SAT Math 620 -750

The Example Student is "Qualified" to attend UC Santa Cruz.

 

Fall 2018 (Class of 2018)

GPA 3.46 - 3.96

ACT 19 - 27

SAT English 600 - 700

SAT Math 620 -780

The Example Student is "Way Over Qualified" to attend UC Merced.

 

 

 

There is a lack of "Diversity" that is resulting from Selling Seats to International students from Asia and the Middle East.

Total Nonresident International Student Enrollment

40,122 students 

88% are from Asia and the Middle East

61% are from the People's Republic of China

27% are from other parts of Asia and the Middle East

The Rest of the World is represented by 12% of the University of California's total international enrollment. 

This does not include students from Asia and the Middle East that are living in California and are considered "residents". This does not include undocumented students who are from Asia and the middle east that are living in the country and are considered "residents".

The University enrollment is not diverse and it no longer reflects the ethnicity of the population of the State of California.

The Auditor recommended limiting International and Out of State enrollment to 5% to that "highly qualified" California Residents would be guaranteed enrollment at the "appropriate" school of their choice as mandated by law.

2015 Audit of the UC at page 6

"Specifically, the Legislature should consider limiting the percentage of undergraduate nonresidents that the university can enroll each year. Between academic years 2005–06 and 2007–08— before the fiscal crisis—nonresidents comprised about 5 percent of the university’s new undergraduate enrollment. By academic year 2014–15, that percentage had climbed to more than 17 percent, which translated into more than 7,200 additional new nonresident undergraduates enrolled over a 5 percent limit. Implementing a 5 percent limit on new nonresident enrollment would allow the university to enroll an equivalent number of additional new resident undergraduate students per year—about 7,200—more than the number it enrolled in academic year 2014–15."

2015 Audit of the UC at page 7 

"To ensure that the university meets its commitment to residents and to bring transparency and accountability to admission outcomes, the Legislature should consider excluding the students who the university places in the referral pool and who do not ultimately enroll at the referral campus when calculating the university’s Master Plan admission rate until the percentage of students who enroll through the referral process more closely aligns with the admission percentages of the other campuses.

2015 Audit of the UC at page 35

Financial Penalties to California Residents

When a qualified California Resident is denied an "appropriate" placement within the UC system, they are forced to accept enrollment in another selective 4-year College or University outside the UC system or attend Community College and try to transfer. Students that choose to attend a highly selective 4-year college outside the UC system are forced to pay extremely high tuition and fees compared to what they would have paid within the UC System.

University of California Tuition and Fees: $14,335 (Average Tuition and Fees)

2018 Tuition & Fees (varies among each campus) 

 2018 Tuition and Fees
  Resident Nonresident Tuition

2018-19

 

CA Resident

Tuition

 Tuition

 Nonresident

Supplemental

Tuition

Total

Average

$43,000

Berkeley  $14,184  $14,184  $28,992 $43,176
Davis $14,402 $14,402 $28,992 $40,434
Irvine $15,450 $15,450  $28,992 $44,442
UCLA $13,225 $13,225 $28,992  $42,217
Merced $13,538 $13,538  $28,992  $42,530
Riverside $15,602 $15,602  $28,992 $44,594
San Diego  $14,429 $14,429  $28,992 $43,421
Santa Barbara  $14,424 $14,424  $28,992  $43,416
Santa Cruz  $13,962 $13,962   $28,992  $42,954

 

A California Resident who is denied a seat will be spending much more in tuition and fees.

Comparable Highly Selective Four Year Colleges Outside the UC System: $54,342 (average cost)

USC $58,195
Chapman University $54,540
USD $51,186
Pepperdine University $55,892
Stanford $52,857
University of Michigan $49,350
University of Colorado Boulder $53,504
University of Pennsylvania $53,534
NYU $53,310
MIT $53,780
UC Chicago $57,006
Duke  $58,198
John Hopkins  $53,740
Northwestern  $54,567
Ivy League Schools
Brown $58,604
Columbia $55,056
Cornell  $52,853
Dartmouth $55,035
Harvard $50,420
Princeton  $52,800
Yale $55,500

University of Colorado has the right approach. They have three different Tuitions:

Undergraduate Colorado Resident $28,750

Undergraduate nonresident $ 53,504

International $59,312

California is actually "selling" seats to International and Out of State Students at flagship schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley for a substantial discount ($40,000 vs $50,000+). 

If the University of California increased it's Nonresident Supplemental Fee by $10,000, the UC would raised an additional $402 million dollars in 2018.

40,219 International Students X $10,000 = $402,190,000 

Why is the University of California denying admission to California Residents to "raise revenue" while it is discounting tuition and fees to International students?

 

$156,400.00 - Financial Harm to the families (CA Taxpayers) of "Qualified" California Students that were denied a seat.

In addition to paying some of the highest taxes inn the nation, these California families are now being forced to pay increased educational expenses of $156,400 to get a comparable education outside the UC System.

Increased Tuition and Fees for "Qualified" CA Residents Denied "Appropriate UC Admission   
Tuition Outside UC system $53,345
CA Resident Tuition at UC $14,335
Difference $39,010
Over 4 years $156,040

 

The University of California has Unjustly Enriched Itself at the Expense of California Taxpayers 

The University of California is a taxpayer funded, "Public University". California tax payers should not be subsidizing the education of Out of State and International students at the expense of their own children. 

The Auditor recognized that the University of California was unjustly enriching itself at the expense of the California Taxpayers.

The Auditor indicated that adding an additional 10,000 seats to the University of California's capacity did not provide a legal remedy to California taxpayers that have been forced to spend an additional $156,000 in tuition and fees to ensure their child received a comparable education outside the UC system. 

The University of California must comply with its Master Plan Mandate to provide priority enrollment to California Residents.

You can Appeal your University of California decision based on this "new" information.

 

International students GPA are much lower than CA Residents

Source:

University of California Admission by Source School FR GPA by Year