La Vista

By Kyle Allen
Editor-in-Chief

Obtaining a quality education has long been considered the pathway to upward social mobility and better career options.

As the United States heads deeper into the 21st century, there is no more critical issue than the declining state of our education system.

School districts in wealthier communities like Manhattan Beach benefit from education foundations that raise money to supplement limited state funding. This effectively creates a system in which public schools in wealthy areas offer far more opportunities than those in poorer ones.

According to a 2005 study conducted by the Education Trust, districts in the highest poverty areas have $907 less available per student than those in the wealthiest areas.

Access to a college education is increasingly limited to those who lack the resources to pay tuition, room and board without the help of financial aid or student loans.

The cost of attending a private four-year institution is nearly 10 times higher than it was in 1980, while the average cost of living is only 3 times as high as it was in 1980, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures.

Attending a public university is not getting any easier financially, either. State systems like the University of California continue to raise in-state tuition prices at a faster rate than out-of-state tuition and are accepting more out-of-state students to make up reductions in state funding.

As state governments continue to cut education funding in the name of sound budgets, the quality of education becomes increasingly predicated on personal wealth.

If we continue this course, the economic mobility central to the American Dream will disappear, and success will be limited to those who can afford to learn.

The federal government must act to increase funding given to public schools and lower the cost of attending college by paying for any student to attend a public university if he or she agrees to spend the next five years in civil service.

Think of it as a social GI Bill that would provide an influx of talented and educated individuals to public service and create an opportunity for anyone to attend college.

Although the gulf between education opportunities is widening, this isn’t to say a proactive change can’t be made. By reconsidering the current, narrow monetary definition of tuition, students can live to see unbridled educational opportunities, and the American Dream can be revitalized.

This article is part of a PRO/CON opinion piece on Senate Bill 955. To view the opposing side, see here.

By Michael Powell
Staff Writer

California Senate Bill 955 provides school districts with the ability to layoff teachers based upon skill instead of seniority. While this may seem like an effective way to layoff teachers, in reality it will not improve California’s education system.

The bill has three major components. It eliminates the deadline that school districts have to notify teachers of possible dismissal, shortens the legal process for dismissing teachers and does away with the seniority system for firing teachers.

The purpose of the bill is to allow school districts to retain the best teachers possible in bad fiscal situations, but some of its provisions will deter great teachers from staying with their districts.

Eliminating the deadline districts have to “pink slip” teachers will distract some teachers from their classrooms as any teacher could be let go at any moment.

By eliminating the seniority restrictions for laying off teachers, the state would give districts the leeway to let go of teachers for reasons other than aptitude and potential.

Seniority shields the higher-paid and more-tenured teachers from layoffs and prevents districts from dismissing more experienced and expensive teachers purely on the basis of expense in favor of more untested and less-costly teachers. Without it, districts have the ability to let exceptional teachers go only because they are considered too expensive.

In no way could students benefit from losing a school’s most experienced and knowledgeable teachers simply because they make the most money.

While seniority may allow some inadequate teachers to remain in their jobs, it also provides teachers protection from political terminations.

The elimination of any system protecting teachers from unjust layoffs opens the door to a system in which teachers are fired for being critical of the administration or being unpopular with parents and students. Popularity and like-ability don’t necessarily correlate to teaching.

Shortening the dismissal process for letting go of teachers compounds this problem by removing checks in the judicial system that help weed out unjust terminations. Not only would teachers be at risk for more arbitrary layoffs, they would have less opportunity to protest them.

In conclusion, SB 955 would harm the most influential part of a student’s education: the teachers. Although the current system isn’t perfect, it protects necessary teacher rights that are outright neglected by the proposals in SB 955.

Opinion Editor Kyle Allen contributed to this article.

This article is part of a PRO/CON opinion piece on Senate Bill 955. To view the opposing side, see here.

By Allie Campbell
Calendar Editor

In the face of the current California financial crisis, school districts have been forced to make drastic cuts. Because of this, several young and talented teachers have become casualties while more tenured teachers are almost impervious to termination.

Keely Murphy/ La Vista

California’s proposed legislation,  Senate Bill 955, will give greater decision-making power to school districts and allow them to make decisions regarding teacher termination that save money and best benefit the students.

If passed, SB 955 will grant districts more time to announce teacher layoffs, allow districts to make layoffs based solely on their needs within departments and evaluations and reduce the many procedures in staff dismissal.

The current process of staff dismissal is very inefficient. Schools in California must notify teachers of layoffs by March 15, meaning districts must plan their budgets according to the worst-case scenario and give pink slips to teachers that will later be reinstated. In order to alleviate these inefficiencies the state legislature should pass SB 955.

Additionally, SB 955 would eliminate the seniority system for layoffs, which can keep ineffective senior teachers while younger, more effective ones are more susceptible to layoffs because of budget cuts. Instead, the bill would allow layoffs based on teacher quality rather than seniority, therefore providing students with the best teachers rather than the longest tenured.

Many fear that layoffs without restrictions based on seniority could lead to unfair terminations made for political reasons or to save money. However, if districts establish a transparent teacher evaluation system, this problem could be avoided and layoffs could be made through a combination of performance-based evaluation and districts’ needs for each department.

SB 955 also plans to shorten the dismissal process after employees are laid off. Currently, teachers go through a long legal process before being officially terminated. California’s Commission on Professional Competence has the final decision-making power with regard to the termination of certificated staff.

According to an L.A. Times investigation, Los Angeles Unified  School District spends approximately $10 million annually on teachers who receive salaries but are not teaching while they are reviewed for job suitability.

While these teachers are not working but getting paid, the district is losing money and is forced to lay off even more teachers. SB 955 plans to give ultimate dismissal power to the district. This eliminates several intermediate steps, thus saving school funds.

Undoubtedly, the current evaluation and termination process for teachers is very inefficient and cumbersome. A clear alternative is needed to increase the effectiveness of the state’s school districts.

SB 955 is a far-reaching and effective piece of legislation that will benefit students by saving districts’ money and time and providing students with the best teachers. Effective teachers are the single-most important element in a student’s education, and SB 955 will help preserve them.

This article is part of a PRO/CON opinion piece on education for illegal immigrants. To view the opposing side, see here.

Keely Murphy/ La Vista

By Eric Zheng
Opinion Editor

As Mira Costa students apply to colleges and universities across the nation, the rising costs of tuition are a principal concern for many. The California Supreme Court’s decision to keep programs providing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants further agitates these concerns.

The decision comes during one of the state’s greatest fiscal crises and after both the California State University and University of California systems announced future increases in tuition of 15 and eight percent, respectively.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute estimates that, as a result of the approximately 25,000 undocumented students in the state’s public colleges who can receive in-state tuition benefits, California universities will lose over $200 million of revenue from tuition. Providing undocumented workers with reduced tuition costs will only enhance the burden on California’s legal citizens.

Though California boasts one of the most prestigious public university systems in the nation, it is quickly becoming unaffordable for many of the state’s legal residents. The rising costs of in-state tuition can be offset partially by revenue from out-of-state tuition, but filling the state’s university systems with undocumented students paying a reduced tuition eliminates this possibility.

Also, the California Supreme Court’s decision raises the moral and legal issue of endowing government benefits to residents who are in the state and country illegally. In addition, as California does not offer uniform tuition rates to in-state and out-of-state students, the California Supreme Court’s decision is in conflict with federal law Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623, which prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving benefits based on residency and not afforded to all other U.S. citizens.

According to the Office of Immigration Statistics, California currently has over 2 million illegal immigrants living within its borders, more than any other state. However, California is also one of only 11 states in the nation that provides undocumented students reduced tuition costs. Offering increased benefits to undocumented students will only continue to perpetuate the state’s illegal immigration concerns.

Since illegal immigrants do not qualify for federal aid, they do clearly need viable means to access higher education. However, granting in-state tuition to immigrants who are not even legal residents of the state is not appropriate, especially in these economic circumstances. The issue of immigration and economic and educational opportunities for illegal immigrants calls for more federal action, not simply California’s good intentions.

Furthermore, granting illegal immigrants in-state tuition will intensify the economic hardships the majority of the state’s legal residents face. The state’s action will only encourage illegal immigration, aggravate the financial issues of the state’s public universities and hinder the state’s economy.

Alternatives such as the DREAM Act recently endorsed by President Barack Obama are more suitable for the state. The DREAM Act provides illegal immigrants an opportunity to obtain legal residency after two years of military service or four years spent in a university. Fortunately, the act provides undocumented students no benefits regarding in-state tuition.

Ultimately, providing undocumented students in-state tuition is extremely costly. It is not fair for the legal residents of California and prospective out-of-state students to suffer for the benefit and well-being of undocumented students.

This article is part of a PRO/CON opinion piece on education for illegal immigrants. To view the opposing side, see here.

Keely Murphy/ La Vista

By Diane Lee
Staff Writer

Illegal immigrant students attending California’s public universities and colleges greatly benefit from the ruling by the California Supreme Court on Nov. 15, which stated that illegal aliens will continue to receive lower in-state tuition rates. The Court correctly concluded that the state law granting illegal immigrants in-state tuition is not in violation of federal law.

The court case began when California’s out-of state students challenged the Regents of the University of California for not giving them equal benefits as the illegal immigrant students. The Immigration Reform Law Institute, a non-profit law firm that works to defend American citizens’ rights and liberties threatened by illegal immigrants, provided the lawyers for the case.

The organization claimed that providing illegal alien students with cheaper in-state tuition is against the federal law Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623, which bans giving illegal immigrants benefits for their residency that are denied to other U.S. citizens, such as out-of-state students.

On the other hand, the regents of 147 public colleges and universities in California argued that according to the California Education Code 68130.5 and state law AB 540, undocumented students may be given low-cost rates if they have attended a high school in California for three years and have signed an oath declaring to legalize their status as soon as possible.

The California Supreme Court ruled that AB 540 is not a violation of federal law as benefits for illegal immigrants are not based on their residency status. Soon after, the IRLI announced that they will appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, undocumented students attending California’s higher education facilities should continue to receive in-state tuition rates. As the California Supreme Court stated, the regents are not violating the federal law because they make no provisions based upon residency.

The federal law prohibits giving illegal immigrants low-cost tuition because they are residents in a certain state. However, the state law does not give the illegal immigrants in-state tuition because they are residents in California. AB 540 gives them the benefits because they attended a California high school for three years.
The law also says that illegal aliens cannot receive the benefit if it isn’t available for all U.S. citizens. The reduced tuition is technically available to all U.S. citizens because there are ways non-residents can get in-state tuition. For example, if a student attends a boarding school in California for three years, he or she may receive in-state tuition rates.

The IRLI claims that more than 25,000 undocumented students attend the public universities and colleges in California and that charging them in-state tuition rates costs the state about $208 million each year in revenue.

These 25,000 aliens are students legally accepted into their schools and in compliance with all the requirements of the Education Code. Therefore, the costs the state incurs with undocumented students should not be differentiated from the costs of the other 41,000 students that qualified for in-state-tuition.
The California Supreme Court decision is not only a correct interpretation of the law, it is a fair ruling for illegal immigrants and provides all residents equal opportunities to education.

California’s Education Code and state law AB 540 grant illegal immigrants the right to attend public colleges in California if they meet the requirements. Affording illegal immigrants in-state tuition is a just way of ensuring equal opportunity to education and is in no way in violation of federal law.

By Braden Currey
Staff Writer

Great teachers make great schools. It’s that simple. Let’s hope California’s next governor, Jerry Brown, can figure that out.

Whether it is seen in the innovative inner-city charter schools featured in the documentary, “Waiting for Superman,” or successful suburban schools like Mira Costa, the recipe for educational success is the same: it all starts with the teachers.

How do we ensure that California’s schools have more great teachers? One important step in the right direction would be adjusting the budget in order to place a greater emphasis on education.

Currently, K-12 education makes up about 31% of the state’s budget, yet it affects a much larger part of the population. Meanwhile, Corrections and Rehabilitation makes up about 8% of the budget despite its minimal effect on the majority of the population.

We need to raise teachers’ salaries and hire more of them. California’s per pupil spending is among the lowest in the country. That needs to change. The recent $1.6 million grant to MBUSD from the state was a step in the right direction, but education funding needs to be increased across the board if we want our students to perform well.

California has the third highest pupil-to-teacher ratio nationwide, with 21.1 students per teacher, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. Studies have shown that this is extremely detrimental to the education of California’s children. Project STAR, or Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio, highlighted a clear correlation between smaller class sizes and improved student learning.

Hiring more teachers would be a simple, certifiable way of improving California’s educational system as a result of reducing classroom size. Studies performed by the California Department of Education have also shown that smaller class sizes have more parent volunteers and are more on task than classes with more students.

Rather than targeting the “bad teachers” of our educational system that lag behind, we should create incentives for teachers to teach their students enthusiastically. The focus on “bad teachers” is a sideshow – the real mandate should be unleashing great teachers into California schools.

Encouraging teachers to work hard and rewarding them for their performance would promote a more competitive and productive educational system in California. More teachers and higher wages would be simple ways to improve California’s educational system as well, simply by directing less important budgetary measures toward education.

In the long term, the education of California’s youth matters much more to the state, as a whole, than the areas of the budget which education must compete with. While it might seem rational to cut the state’s education spending during these tough economic times, it will come back to hurt us in years if the core of our workforce lacks preparation.