Archive for Career Technical Education

Latest Scheme for Career Technical Education: School Districts Borrowing Money with “Social Impact Bonds” – Unions on Board

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On March 19, 2013, California State Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg led a press conference to promote Senate Bill 594 (California Career Pathways Investment, also known as the High School Dropout Reduction & Workforce Development Bond Act of 2013) meant to encourage partnerships among school districts, corporations, and unions for career technical education in California K-12 schools and community college districts.

Senator Steinberg also promoted this bill on March 22 at Redevelopment Forum: Revitalizing our Neighborhoods in a Post-Redevelopment Era, hosted by the San Diego Foundation. SB 894 is apparently a serious initiative.

It establishes an unfunded mandate for K-12 school districts and community college districts to create a new pool of money called a “Career Pathways Investment Trust Fund.” These districts can borrow money for the program by selling “Social Impact Bonds” (a concept promoted by the “progressive” Center for American Progress) for which investors can earn “Career Pathways Investment Credits.” This will be overseen by a new state government board called the “California Career Pathways Investment Committee.” The appointments of the Assembly Speaker and Senate Rules Committee to this committee will likely be union officials.

Senate Bill 594 exemplifies the foolishness of governance in the California State Legislature:

  • bizarre and incomprehensible financing schemes
  • borrowing money (with interest) without consideration of cumulative debt service
  • unfunded state mandates
  • forcing the state’s local governments to create and manage another pool of money
  • inviting more corruption at local governments
  • creating another state government board
  • tax breaks to corporations for ambiguous purposes
  • intrusion of corporations and unions into the public school system
  • brilliant suggestions that freed-up funds from a few cuts in the state budget can be transferred to pay for it
  • lack of concrete evidence that there is a problem (in fact, testimony during the press conference suggested the big problem is a lack of jobs, not lack of training)
  • government solutions for something that could be handled by the free market if there was real demand

When Governor Schwarzenegger promoted his Career Technical Education initiative in 2007, he considered it worthy enough to propose paying for it out of the general fund through the annual state budget. His efforts were not deemed worthy of mention at the SB 594 press conference.

Here’s my March 20, 2013 article in www.UnionWatch.org about the press conference and Senate Bill 594: Businesses Can Make a “Social Impact Bond” with Unions – www.UnionWatch.org – March 20, 2013.

The Sacramento Bee posted an article on March 21, 2013 about Senate Bill 594, Steinberg Pushes Privately Funded Career Training Program, which quotes me as a skeptic:

But skeptics wonder how the career readiness programs would be funded.

“They need to stop coming up with new funds and new schemes paid for by borrowed money,” said Kevin Dayton, head of the consulting firm called Labor Issues Solutions. “New things like this are just a big distraction. If they want to do career education they should fund it in the general budget.”

I posted these comments under the article:

Do you want your K-12 school district or community college district to establish a “Career Pathways Investment Trust Fund” and oversee yet another pool of money? It’s a mandate.

Let’s create another state government board: the “California Career Pathways Investment Committee!” The appointments of the Assembly Speaker and Senate Pro Tem will certainly be union officials.

Do you want your K-12 school district or community college district to sell “Social Impact Bonds?” Who will pay the interest on these bonds? Who will make the money on the interest?

“Career Pathways Investment Credits” – how about just focusing on an efficient, responsible government with a simple tax structure?

As another comment indicated, “the State has funding for apprentices (it contributes about 5% of the cost to train an apprentice – the rest coming from employers)…”

I also mentioned this in my comment:

One is led to believe Senate Bill 594 is needed because California businesses can’t find skilled workers. But notice the nurses’ association representative says the problem is that trained nurses can’t find jobs in California and therefore need to move out-of-state. And is there really a shortage of skilled construction workers in California right now? Are there no longer 20%-30% unemployment rates in the building trades? Or is SB 594 for training disadvantaged union workers to build the California High-Speed Rail under the Project Labor Agreement?

Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton wrote positively about the general concept of encouraging career technical education (he avoids the politically correct phrase and simply calls it “shop”), but his column (Reinvigorating ‘Career Tech’ a Worthy Goal – Los Angeles Times – March 20, 2013) also reveals that the supporters don’t understanding the funding scheme:

Steinberg’s legislation is a bit convoluted — at least the financing part — and needs much work…Steinberg is suggesting several financing methods, including tax credits and foundation grants. But the main money source involves bonds. The state would sell “workforce development bonds” — say, for $1 million a crack — to businesses in areas “with the greatest potential for high-wage job growth.” The bond revenue would pay for the career-tech programs. The bond-buyers would earn a rate of return based on a program’s results, as judged by some committee. “I’m not sure I completely understand it,” Zaremberg [Allan Zaremberg, President & CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce] told me. “Why don’t we just fund this out of existing resources? Is this not a priority? … like Zaremberg, he [Jack Stewart, President of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association] doesn’t quite grasp the bond idea.

Dan Walters is another California commentator who has written much over many years about the need for stronger career technical education programs in California public schools. (For example, see Technical Education Fight RagesSacramento Bee – November 19, 2007)  I look forward to reading his perspectives on Senate Bill 594.

A Small Electrical Apprenticeship Program Tries to Overcome Rigid State Government Control of Apprenticeship Programs for the Construction Trades in California

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

UPDATE: On September 18, 2013, the Independent Training and Apprenticeship Program (I-TAP) lost its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Independent Training v. California Department of Industrial Relations. As the decision noted, “The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants in a suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the California Department of Industrial Relations’ actions were inconsistent with federal Fitzgerald Act regulations governing the employment of apprentices on public works projects qualifying as ‘Federal purposes.'”


Construction trade unions are sometimes accused of misusing the government-regulated apprenticeship structure as a tool to control who, how, and how many people enter the construction workforce. Sponsors of proposed apprenticeship programs who aim to compete against existing union programs have long endured legal obstacles in states such as Washington, Oregon, and Nevada.

But as usual, California takes the prize for the best use of government to cut competition and freedom of choice in the marketplace. From 2002 to 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor threatened to punish – and then proceeded to punish – the State of California for failing to follow federal laws meant to encourage the construction industry to train the future American workforce through apprenticeships.

Now a California-based training program for apprentices, approved by the federal government in 2004 to train electrical workers, is suing the State of California because the state takes a very narrow interpretation of the federal punishment – so much so that the punishment is effectively meaningless. This apprenticeship program contends that its apprentices have lost a substantial number of opportunities to get on-the-job training on state and local construction projects as a result of this inappropriately narrow interpretation.

Background of How the State of California Has Traditionally Regulated Apprenticeship for the Construction Trades

California Labor Code Section 1777.5 outlines the statutory requirements for construction contractors regarding apprenticeship when these companies work on public works projects of $30,000 or more. These contractors must request apprentices from state-approved training programs. Contractors must employ these apprentices in a ratio not less than one hour of apprentice work for every five hours of journeyman work (with a few exceptions).

Because they are less than fully trained, apprentices are the only workers on a public works project to whom contractors can pay less than the full “journeyman” prevailing wage. For trades such as electrical inside wireman, the pay rate for apprentices increases in conjunction with the progress of the apprentice through classroom instruction and on-the-job training.

The state generally understands that a contractor is required to request apprentices from a program approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards to train workers for that trade in the county where the work is performed. Contractors are required to make payments designated for “apprenticeship and training” in the state-mandated prevailing wage rate to the program or programs that provided the apprentices, or (if not enough apprentices are dispatched to fulfill the 5:1 ratio) to any program approved to train workers for that trade in the county where the work is performed, or to the California Apprenticeship Council.

Under California Labor Code Section 1773.1(a)(6), contractors are able to take a “credit” for the payments for apprenticeship and training against the total hourly state-mandated “prevailing wage” rate, provided that the amount paid to the program is reasonably related to the cost of the program. In other words, the state-mandated hourly wage to a worker is reduced by the amount paid for apprenticeship and training, but the contractor cannot pay an excessive amount to a training program’s trust fund.

When does the reasonable cost for apprenticeship and training become an issue? The state sets the standard employer payment amounts for apprenticeship and training based on the applicable union collective bargaining agreement for that trade in that geographical region, so a competing program not affiliated with that union might charge a contractor a different rate for apprenticeship and training than the amount designated in the applicable state-mandated prevailing wage rate.

Under California Labor Code Section 3075 (a), the Director of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards is authorized to approve three categories of apprenticeship programs: (1) those run by unions and their affiliated contractor associations through joint apprenticeship committees, (2) those run by non-union contractor associations through unilateral apprenticeship committees, and (3) programs run by individual corporate employers. Unions had a complete monopoly on apprenticeship training in the California construction trades until 1988, and they still monopolize apprenticeship training for many trades in many geographic areas.

Why the Federal Government Took Away California’s Authority to Regulate Apprenticeship for Federal Purposes

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the National Apprenticeship Act (the Fitzgerald Act) into law in 1937. This law authorizes the U.S. Department of Labor to “formulate and promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices and to cooperate with the States in the promotion of such standards.”

California is one of 27 states that exercise an option to perform their own oversight and regulation of apprenticeship programs, rather than leaving it to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employment and Labor Services (OATELS). They are commonly called “SAC states” – that is, states with State Apprenticeship Councils.

In 1999, Governor Gray Davis signed into law Assembly Bill 921, a union-backed bill that amended California Labor Code 3075 in order to establish a stringent “needs test” that a proposed apprenticeship program or an apprenticeship program seeking to expand to a new trade or geographic jurisdiction must fulfill before the program can be approved or expanded.

Construction unions have exploited this language to block the approval of new programs or programs expanding into new trades or geographical regions, thus cutting competition in training and limiting the choice in comprehensive training programs for people seeking a career in the construction trades. The law also creates confusion about who has the authority to approve or reject applications for new or expanding apprenticeship programs: the Chief of the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards or the California Apprenticeship Council.

In response to this needs test, the U.S. Department of Labor in 2002 began the process of “derecognition,” or taking away the State of California’s authority to regulate apprenticeship for federal purposes. The California Division of Apprenticeship Standards under the Davis Administration and the union-controlled California Apprenticeship Council both challenged the derecognition process.

In January 2007, a U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor has the right to “derecognize” California’s authority to regulate apprenticeship for federal purposes. The decision upheld an earlier Administrative Law Judge decision noting that the “needs test” in Section 3075 of the California Labor Code used by unions to prevent new or expanded apprenticeship programs “does not promote competition among programs, does not consider the needs of individuals seeking apprenticeship training, and limits training opportunities for apprentices.”

At the demand of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, the California State Legislature has stopped four bills that included a provision to repeal the needs test: Assembly Bill 2660 in 2006 (sponsored by Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) of California), Assembly Bill 947 in 2007 (sponsored by the Schwarzenegger Administration), Assembly Bill 734 in 2008 (a bipartisan bill amended at the very end to eliminate the repeal provision), and Senate Bill 362 in 2012 (sponsored by ABC of California). (Note: I was State Government Affairs Director of ABC of California when these bills were introduced and considered.)

What’s the Practical Effect of Derecognition? The Independent Training and Apprenticeship Program (I-TAP) Seeks to Clarify the Meaning through a Lawsuit

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employment and Labor Services (OATELS) approved the Independent Training and Apprenticeship Program (I-TAP) to train apprentices on federal projects in January 2004. This unambiguously means that contractors can classify and pay workers dispatched from the I-TAP program as apprentices on purely federal projects. The workers would also be unambiguously classified as apprentices in states that have not exercised the option of preempting apprenticeship regulatory authority from the U.S. Department of Labor.

The ambiguity about the legality of I-TAP providing on-the-job training to its apprentices working on state and local government projects results from the meaning of “derecognition” and the meaning of “federal purposes” in a state that had long claimed statutory and regulatory authority over apprenticeship.

For a few years after the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2007 derecognition of California’s authority to “register and oversee” apprenticeship policies for federal purposes, electrical contractors requested apprentices from I-TAP, employed them on the job at apprenticeship rates, and made payments on behalf of the apprentices to I-TAP under the belief that the derecognition allowed them to do so. Officials of the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) made occasional preliminary inquires about contractors’ compliance with state laws when using I-TAP as a source of apprentices, but did not take further action after contractors justified their use of I-TAP on the new conditions resulting from derecognition.

But in the fall of 2010, the California Department of Industrial Relations threatened to assess back wages and penalties against a contractor – Gray Electric Company – for classifying workers dispatched from I-TAP as apprentices on school construction projects in Marysville and in Grass Valley. Gray Electric had requested apprentices from I-TAP, employed them on the job at apprentice wage rates, and made payments on behalf of the apprentices to I-TAP. The contractor argued that it could regard these workers as apprentices because the project received federal financial assistance and I-TAP was a federally-approved program.

To avoid further controversy, Gray Electric ultimately withdrew from its agreement to train with I-TAP. Then, a labor-management cooperation committee affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) submitted a wage complaint to the California Department of Industrial Relations because another electrical contractor – Harold E. Nutter & Son, Inc. – was classifying workers dispatched from I-TAP as apprentices on a Stockton school construction project.

Harold E. Nutter & Son, Inc. and the individual apprentice argued that because the federal government has “derecognized” the state under the federal Fitzgerald Act and thus deprived the state of its authority to regulate apprenticeship policies for federal purposes, contractors on federally-funded projects are legally permitted to pay apprenticeship-level wages and take credits against the prevailing wage rate for payments to an apprenticeship program, even if the program is only approved by the federal government and not the state.

The California Department of Industrial Relations disagreed and assessed back wages and penalties against the contractor (Harold E. Nutter & Sons, Inc.) for paying apprentice-level wages to its worker enrolled in the federally-approved I-TAP. It did not recognize the I-TAP apprentice as a legitimate apprentice for purposes of state law. It also disallowed payments for “apprenticeship and training” to I-TAP as valid payments under the state prevailing wage law that could be taken as a credit against the total hourly wage.

As a result of the DIR crackdown on contractors classifying I-TAP apprentices as journeymen on projects not exclusively funded by the federal government, several contractors have ended their agreements to train with I-TAP, and apprentices in the program have lost paid on-the-job training opportunities. Some have dropped from the program.

Time for a Lawsuit

On May 19, 2011, the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) was sued by three parties: an apprentice indentured in the Independent Training and Apprenticeship Program, an employer with an agreement to train apprentices in the I-TAP program (Harold E. Nutter & Son, Inc.), and the I-TAP program itself. The case is Independent Training and Apprenticeship Program et al. v. California Department of Industrial Relations et al.

This is an interesting case probing the meaning of the U.S. Department of Labor’s “derecognition” of the authority of the State of California to regulate apprenticeship for federal purposes.

The plaintiffs complain that when the DIR alleges a contractor has violated prevailing wage laws for using I-TAP apprentices, the agency does not take responsibility to determine if a construction project is receiving federal funding and thus falls under “federal purposes” under derecognition, but leaves it to the contractor to determine the sources of funding.

The federal financial assistance for the Grass Valley and Stockton school construction projects was provided in the form of “Buy America Bonds,” which are subsidized by the federal government throughout their tax-exempt status. But the plaintiffs in this lawsuit went even further, contending that the federal Fitzgerald Act in essence makes any policies providing “apprenticeship opportunities” as a “federal purpose.”

The Outlook for This Case, and How You Can Help

A federal district court sided with the California Department of Industrial Relations against the I-TAP plaintiffs. However, the I-TAP plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Obviously there are numerous entrenched interests that don’t want to see the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) lose its regulatory control over apprenticeship training opportunities on the construction projects of state and local governments. In contrast, the I-TAP plaintiffs are alone, but they see this case as a higher pursuit of freedom of choice in training for workers and the improvement of apprenticeship training as a whole through greater competition.

I-TAP plaintiffs are looking for funding for their lawsuit, amicus briefs to be submitted to the court in support of their case, and any assistance or evidence that provides additional backing for their arguments. For more information, contact Carolyn Nutter, Training Coordinator for the Independent Training & Apprenticeship Program, at (916) 332-3332 or via email.

Documents Related to Federal District Court Case

  1. 2011-04-18 I-TAP Complaint & Exhibits to District Court
  2. 2011-05-19 I-TAP Notice of Motion & Motion for Preliminary Injunction to District Court
  3. 2011-05-19 I-TAP Memo of Points & Authorities to District Court
  4. 2011-05-19 I-TAP Compendium of Evidence to District Court
  5. 2011-05-19 I-TAP Request for Judicial Notice and Exhibit A
  6. 2011-05-19 I-TAP Exhibits B C and D
  7. 2011-05-23 I-TAP Case – I-TAP Notice of Errata to Complaint to District Court
  8. 2011-06-27 DIR Opposition to Preliminary Injunction to District Court
  9. 2011-06-27 DIR Objections to I-TAP Evidence
  10. 2011-06-27 DIR DAS Director’s Declaration to District Court
  11. 2011-07-01 I-TAP Reply to DIR Opposing Motion for Preliminary Injunction to District Court
  12. 2011-07-01 I-TAP Declaration to District Court Rebut DAS Director’s Declaration
  13. 2011-08-15 District Court Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction
  14. 2011-10-31 I-TAP Stipulation and Proposed Order

Documents Related to Ninth District US Court of Appeals Case

  1. 2012-04-20 I-TAP Opening Brief to Appeals Court
  2. 2012-06-22 DIR Brief to Appeals Court
  3. 2012-08-03 I-TAP Reply Brief to Appeals Court
  4. 2013-09-09 Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals Decision I-TAP v DIR

$500 Million California School Construction Funding Program for Career Technical Education – 5 1/2 Years Later, Is the Program a Success?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I think California taxpayers deserve to hear and know a lot more about the status and results of the significant investment of taxpayer funding on the construction and improvement of California school district facilities designated for career technical education (vocational education).

For example, has statewide demand for building these school facilities faded since the big mid-2000s push for career technical education led by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? How many students have been using these facilities, and is the rate of use increasing?

Why have some school districts not claimed the funds approved by the State Allocation Board for their career technical education facility funding?

Have there been cases in which school districts used career technical education funds to build facilities that were not used for that purpose in the end? Which school districts are guilty?

Has anyone investigated or audited some of these new or renovated facilities to determine they are actually being used for their intended purposes?

Which of the 15 sectors of career technical education have been most popular in terms of requests for state funding? Here’s the list:

  1. Agriculture and Natural Resources
  2. Arts, Media, and Entertainment
  3. Building Trades and Construction
  4. Education, Child Development, and Family Services
  5. Energy and Utilities
  6. Engineering and Design
  7. Fashion and Interior Design
  8. Finance and Business
  9. Health Science and Medical Technology
  10.  Hospitality, Tourism, and Recreation
  11.  Information Technology
  12.  Manufacturing and Product Development
  13.  Marketing, Sales, and Service
  14.  Public Services
  15.  Transportation

I’ll open this issue by presenting some of the background on funding and grants.

Voters Approved $500 Million in State Matching Grants in 2006

Go back in your memory to the halycon days of the fall of 2006: the economy was booming, house prices were sky-high, construction was happening everywhere, people were paying for luxury goods and services, and taxpayers were feeling generous. And the Schwarzenegger Administration was focused on encouraging “career technical education” to train the future workforce of California for all of the anticipated new construction jobs and other jobs requiring craft skills (see list of 15 sectors, above).

So, it was a ripe time to ask California voters to approve a $10.4 billion bond called the Kindergarten–University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006. It was placed on the ballot through Assembly Bill 127, supported by most Democrat legislators, opposed by many Republican legislators, and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. The ballot measure included $500 million for the construction of facilities related to career technical education programs – see California Education Code Section 101012 (a)(4).

The 2006 ballot argument in support of Proposition 1D claimed that “Many students need vocational training instead of college, but our schools do not have up-to-date facilities to provide it. 1D will enable schools to provide the career and technical training many students need to get jobs.” The 2006 ballot argument against Proposition 1D claimed the program was “untested.” (See ballot arguments here.)

Well, more the five years later, the Career Technical Education Facilities Program (CTEFP) has been “tested.” How is it doing? Have the difficult economic circumstances of the past five years cooled the enthusaism for career technical education in California schools?

Some School Districts Aren’t Asking for Their Approved Funding. Why?

The State Allocation Board allocates or apportions school construction matching grants administered by the Office of Public School Construction in the California Department of General Services.

I was inspired by an article posted on the web today (Dormant School Construction Projects Face Closer Scrutiny – June 5, 2012 – SI&A’s Cabinet Report) to examine the list provided by the Office of Public School Construction of construction projects approved for state matching grants but not funded to date. There is a large cluster of career technical education projects on the list. See the list – arranged by school district – at the end of this article. No reasons are given on the chart as to why the school districts have not requested the funds.

Funding Approval Has Declined, and Money Is Unexpectedly Still Not Allocated

The State Allocation Board reports that it made $33,031,490 in unfunded approvals available to fund applications submitted for a third funding cycle – a cycle not required in law but made possible when the $500 million was not used up in the first two rounds. It reported awarding $199 million in the first round. Despite a claim from the California Department of Education that “it is anticipated that all of the funds will be exhausted,” the second round resulted in apportionment of another $220 million for a total of about $420 million. (It is hard to pin down the exact numbers, for example, this legislative committee analysis for Senate Bill 1380, dated June 30, 2010, claimed that a total of $409 million had been apportioned in the first two cycles, while this analysis for SB 1380 dated April 15, 2010 reported that a total of $417.2 million had been apportioned in the first two cycles.)

According to a “Report of the Executive Officer” for the April 25, 2012 State Allocation Board meeting, “74 Career Technical Education Facilities Program applications totaling approximately $103.6 million in State funds have been received by the Office of Public School Construction as part of the third funding cycle, but have not been approved by the Board due to insufficient bond authority…An additional 73 Career Technical Education Facilities Program Board-approved projects totaling $94.4 million in State funds are currently on the Unfunded List (Lack of AB 55 Loans).”

The California Department of Education has a web site summarizing the program. For some reason, the Department of Education has not posted statutorily required status reports about the program since 2010. The State Allocation Board also has a web site about the program.

As a layperson looking at this program, I find it frustrating and difficult to figure out what’s going on. There should be a single site that informs taxpayers of what has been allocated to specific Career Technical Education Facilities Program projects, which applications for funding are up for approval, which projects are approved, and which projects have been approved but not funded and the reason why they are not funded. Perhaps I am naive to expect that kind of information?

In addition, there is a lot of terminology thrown about, such as “approved,” “allocated,” “apportioned,” “disbursed,” “awarded,” and “available.” It’s hard to untangle.

Proposed Legislation Suggests Either Fraud or Changing Needs in School Districts

Senate Bill 1380 (introduced in 2010) would have changed the Career Technical Education Facilities Program (authorized by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998) to require school boards to pass a resolution indicating that school facilities constructed or modernized with specified bond funds set aside for career technical education purposes would be used for career technical education purposes for a minimum of five years. SB 1380 also allowed a school board to seek a waiver of the career technical education use requirement from the State Allocation Board if school district enrollment changed, if enrollment in career technical programs changed, if the district was unable to hire qualified instructors, or if “labor market demands” changed.

In support of this bill, Senator Loni Hancock (D-Oakland), a member of the State Allocation Board, cited “several implementation problems with the CTEFP program, including LEAs constructing or modernizing CTE facilities and then using them for non-CTE programs.”

Despite passing through the legislature without any votes against it, Senate Bill 1380 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger with this message:

For years many career technical education (CTE) programs and facilities have been ignored or eliminated altogether. However, during my time in office the state has made substantial investment in CTE. This bill stands to threaten the recent investments in this area, as well as the significant momentum we have achieved. By allowing CTE bond funds to be used for CTE investments with just a five year minimum lifespan, and for non-CTE related purposes, this bill seriously risks jeopardizing the quality and scope of investments we make in these facilities.

Note that this bill originally proposed transfering $200 million from the Overcrowded Relief Grants Program to the Career Technical and Education Facilities Program (CTEFP), because it was anticipated that the $500 million would be exhausted in the third round of funding. According to this legislative committee report for SB 1380, applications totaling $231 million were submitted for the third round. (Once again, figures are inconsistent from source to source.)

More Suggestions of Fraud or Changing Priorities for School Districts?

When Senator Mark Wyland (R-Carlsbad/San Juan Capistrano) was appointed to the State Allocation Board in January 2012, he issued a press release entitled “Shaking Things Up at the State Allocation Board” with these remarks:

In addition to exploring in-depth how funds are allocated, this position also creates an opportunity to further promote career technical education (CTE). CTE courses engage and stimulate students with hands-on training in a wide array of fields, leading to greater student success following graduation.

Under a law I authored in 2007, applicants for bond money are required to detail how schools would use funds to house CTE programs. Unfortunately, it appears that many applicants fail to meet this requirement. With this new position I intend to bring attention to CTE and ensure that California’s schools are offering students the opportunities and resources that they deserve.

School Districts with Unfunded Approvals for Career Technical Education Construction Facility Matching Grants from the State Allocation Board under Proposition 1D

ALAMEDA COUNTY – DUBLIN UNIFIED 59/75093-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/11/2010  $533,605

ALAMEDA COUNTY – NEW HAVEN UNIFIED 59/61242-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/23/2010  $394,342

BUTTE COUNTY – CHICO UNIFIED 55/61424-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 6/6/2008  $3,000,000

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY – PITTSBURG UNIFIED 59/61788-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 2/26/2010  $1,409,655

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY – SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED 55/61804-00-005 Career Tech New Construction 3/25/2010   $817,130

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY – SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED 55/61804-00-006 Career Tech New Construction 3/25/2010   $412,085

EL DORADO COUNTY – EL DORADO UNION HIGH 59/61853-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/26/2010  $821,617

FRESNO COUNTY – KINGS CANYON JOINT UNIFIED 55/62265-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $3,000,000

KERN COUNTY – KERN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 55/10157-98-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/29/2010  $723,600

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-017 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $434,224

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-019 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $79,997

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-020 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $826,720

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-021 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $838,925

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-022 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $192,803

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-027 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $596,824

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-029 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $723,188

KERN COUNTY – KERN HIGH 59/63529-00-030 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010  $152,203

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – ARCADIA UNIFIED 55/64261-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $2,316,200

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – ARCADIA UNIFIED 59/64261-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010  $470,962

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LONG BEACH UNIFIED 59/64725-00-003 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/11/2010  $1,500,000

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LONG BEACH UNIFIED 59/64725-00-004 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/11/2010  $1,500,000

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-007 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $1,963,579

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-008 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $3,000,000

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-009 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $1,225,266

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-009 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $1,774,734

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-011 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $2,413,880

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 55/64733-00-013 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010  $1,533,959

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 59/64733-00-027 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010  $50,000

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 59/64733-00-028 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010  $1,401,783

MADERA COUNTY – CHAWANAKEE UNIFIED 55/75606-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/16/2010   $2,086,640

MONTEREY COUNTY – MONTEREY COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 59/10272-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/30/2010  $660,837

NAPA COUNTY – NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED 55/66266-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010   $465,127

ORANGE COUNTY – TUSTIN UNIFIED 59/73643-00-003 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010   $73,732

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – BEAUMONT UNIFIED 59/66993-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/30/2010   $1,335,796

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – DESERT SANDS UNIFIED 55/67058-00-003 Career Tech New Construction 3/10/2010   $2,130,036

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – DESERT SANDS UNIFIED 55/67058-00-005 Career Tech New Construction 3/10/2010   $1,040,611

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – DESERT SANDS UNIFIED 55/67058-00-006 Career Tech New Construction 3/10/2010   $2,666,732

RIVERSIDE COUNTY – RIVERSIDE UNIFIED 59/67215-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/24/2010   $579,687

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – COLTON-REDLANDS-YUCAIPA ROP 59/74138-00-015 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/30/2010   $2,050

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – RIALTO UNIFIED 55/67850-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/3/2010   $1,926,384

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – RIALTO UNIFIED 59/67850-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/3/2010   $1,114,449

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – SWLINE JOINT UNIFIED 55/73957-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/3/2010   $1,093,051

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – SWLINE JOINT UNIFIED 55/73957-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 3/3/2010   $1,031,968

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – CORONADO UNIFIED 59/68031-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,360,199

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – GROSSMONT UNION HIGH 55/68130-13-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $3,000,000

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 55/68338-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/22/2010   $2,918,735

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 55/68338-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 3/22/2010   $986,812

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 55/68338-00-004 Career Tech New Construction 3/22/2010   $1,470,162

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,427,767

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-002 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $473,045

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-004 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,380,824

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-006 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $473,110

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-007 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,022,484

SAN DIEGO COUNTY – SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 59/68338-00-008 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/22/2010   $1,500,000

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY – MANTECA UNIFIED 55/68593-00-004 Career Tech New Construction 3/22/2010   $2,253,216

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY – STOCKTON UNIFIED 55/68676-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 3/29/2010   $3,000,000

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY – STOCKTON UNIFIED 59/68676-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/29/2010   $1,499,715

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY – TRACY JOINT UNIFIED 59/75499-00-007 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010   $514,087

SAN MATEO COUNTY – SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 55/69062-00-004 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $2,073,405

SAN MATEO COUNTY – SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 55/69062-00-006 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $3,000,000

SAN MATEO COUNTY – SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 55/69062-00-007 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $3,000,000

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – CAMPBELL UNION HIGH 55/69401-00-007 Career Tech New Construction 3/8/2010   $625,964

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – CAMPBELL UNION HIGH 59/69401-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/8/2010   $1,003,238

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – CAMPBELL UNION HIGH 59/69401-00-002 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/8/2010   $610,353

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – GILROY UNIFIED 59/69484-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010   $1,191,901

SANTA CLARA COUNTY – PALO ALTO UNIFIED 55/69641-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 3/30/2010   $3,000,000

SIERRA COUNTY – SIERRA-PLUMAS JOINT UNIFIED 55/70177-00-001 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010   $174,412

SISKIYOU COUNTY – SISKIYOU UNION HIGH 55/70466-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 4/1/2010   $296,772

SISKIYOU COUNTY – SISKIYOU UNION HIGH 59/70466-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010   $143,380

SONOMA COUNTY – SANTA ROSA HIGH 55/70920-00-002 Career Tech New Construction 3/26/2010  $1,332,711

STANISLAUS COUNTY – CERES UNIFIED 59/71043-00-003 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/25/2010   $1,201,300

STANISLAUS COUNTY – MODESTO CITY HIGH 59/71175-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 4/1/2010   $337,760

SUTTER COUNTY – YUBA CITY UNIFIED 59/71464-00-001 Career Tech Rehabilitation 3/30/2010   $839,622