Spending flexibility, yes, but at whose expense?
In slashing education spending over the past two years, Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have given school districts more authority to choose how to spend their dwindling dollars. Sacramento has untied the strings on many “categorical programs” – those funded for specific purposes, such as buying textbooks and teaching civics education.
But, to an extent, equity has been sacrificed for flexibility: In many districts, programs primarily benefiting low-income, minority students – summer school, high school exit exam tutoring, community day schools – have been sacrificed to prevent further layoffs and keep the lights on for everyone.
Now there’s an opportunity to really get it right.
Democratic co-sponsors Sens. Alan Lowenthal and Gloria Romero are proposing SB 1396, a three-year pilot program to give three districts latitude over most remaining categorical programs, with Lowenthal’s home district, Long Beach Unified, a likely participant. Programs that would be freed up for general use would include home-to-school transportation, foster youth programs, AVID (counseling and activities for college-aspiring low-income students), child nutrition and class-size reduction, which many districts have abandoned already.
Last year, the governor and legislators gave district pretty much free reign when they mixed categoricals with general spending. School boards are supposed to vote on the use of the former categorical money and invite public comment. But the state’s not keeping track on how and for whom the dollars are being spent.
SB 1396 would be an improvement. The three chosen districts would have to show that they have used the money to improve student performance, close the achievement gap and increase college entrance rates and preparation for careers. Half of district teachers and half of parents surveyed would have to approve participating in the program. And some of the money from Economic Impact Aid, one of the categorical programs, would have to be dedicated to helping English learners.
Debate over weighted student spending
But are general promises enough? Two years ago, before the recession hit hard, the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Education Excellence recommended eliminating categorical spending and using the money to move to weighted student funding, a system that appropriates more money for low-income and English learners. That’s what Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization, favors for SB 1396. Districts would still have flexibility under Public Advocates’ approach, but they’d have to spend more money on children for whom the categoricals were targeted in the first place.
Public Advocates has a point.
The bill was passed by the Senate Education Committee 7-0 this week but faces opposition from the California Teachers Association, in part because the union wants to see class-size reduction money preserved.
Long Beach Unified is recognized as one of the state’s best run districts, with good data systems to track student progress. But with a severe money crunch, administrators and board trustees will face intense pressure to divert money intended for low-income kids to shore up other programs.
SB 1396 offers the districts the chance to be innovative and free of paperwork and regulations. If the district is committed to closing the achievement gap, then it should be willing to commit freed-up money to the students being left behind.
6 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
The reality is curriculum that isn’t required (for high school graduation or college admissions), funded (categorical), or measured (part of accountability standards) will not be offered to students in our public schools.
Career and Technical Education (CTE) stands alone in not being included in any of these criteria. Spending flexibility recently approved by the legislature removed the “ROP categorical” and now school districts are using CTE money for other non-CTE purposes. The decline in these important programs is now accelerating.
Despite the growing need for increased technical competencies in our economy, the very curriculum needed to prepare our students for success in the 21st century continue to be shutdown at a record pace.
It is a stipulated fact that no other curriculum has suffered more from Sacramento education policy and funding directives.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The post does not make clear that there is a major problem in the overall state distribution of categorical funds because their is no adjustment for districts with high numbers of disadvantaged pupils. When you combine the 62 state categorical pots of money, it is essentially an equal per pupil grant to all districts ,without any need adjustment. This state to district misallocation is a different issue than a weighted pupil formula that distributes money to schools within a district.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
One addition to Professor Kirst’s comment – if you combine all the categoricals, it is true that the per pupil amount allocated to each district has no connection to the number of disadvantaged students or any other measure of ‘need’. And what’s even worse is that it is NOT an ‘equal’ per pupil grant – the amount varies a lot from district to district, but not for any reason that makes sense. A lot of people only use the term ‘weighted pupil formula’ to refer to allocation of resources down to the school, within districts, but it is also used to refer to state level formulas. A state-level formula that gave additional weight to students who need additional resources has been advocated by every task force, committee, etc., that has looked at California’s school finance system but Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill that would have been our best shot at such a system.
Also one caveat about curriculum changes – I don’t know about CTE specifically, but a lot of districts have KEPT several of the categorical programs that they could have cut with the new flexibility, and a big reason has been community support. That is, parents and teachers have specified that they consider Program X to be a high priority and they want to continue it. Given the decrease in overall budgets, yes, that has meant other programs may be reduced but isn’t that the point of local control? To let the LOCAL people decide what is important to them, not Sacramento? (and btw, there are a few different studies going on right now to assess how districts are dealing with the budget cuts and flexibility so hopefully, we will soon know more about these issues).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Michael Kirst’s point is right on target. When the Governor’s Committee was looking at how California’s investments in educating low income students is compared to other states, CA is way behind. Transitioning to a weighted pupil funding model would do three things. It would (1)highlight how little we invest in our low income students, (2) show how inequitable the distribution of categorical funding is across school districts, and (3) it would provide districts with the flexibility to administer a coherent educational program instead of the current hodgepodge of programs that are still standing after all of the cuts. SB 1396 would only meet one of these goals – providing flexibility. Unfortunately, SB 1396 sounds much more like an attempt to get to keep CSR funding and redirect those funds to better uses.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
As I recall, the funding system proposed by the Governor’s Committee bore an amazing resemblance to the charter school funding model: (1) “revenue limit” funding with different amounts per ADA in each of four grade spans,(2) “compensatory ed” block grant, with the amount determined by number & concentration of ADA who have limited English skills or whose families are poor, and (3) “categorical block grant” consisting of a variety of other categorical programs. Although funding entitlements are determined based on these factors (”weights”), their use is unrestricted. Accountability for adequately serving special populations is, in theory at least, provided in the charter and through the charter authorizer’s oversight. With this funding structure already in place, and districts’ recently granted ability to “flex” categorical programs, the planets may be aligned to combine the best features of the charter school model with those of the Committee’s recommendation and finally achieve a school finance system that is (at least somewhat)understandable and rational, with accountability for results and flexibility in the means used to attain them.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Yes, it is a real shame that the Governor vetoed a bill that would have required the state to establish a blueprint for a new funding system (AB 8 Brownley). That bill called for much more than “just another study” and could’ve taken us a step closer to a state funding formula that gives more weight to students with the greatest academic needs. So here we are at the predictable place where districts are struggling to use their diminishing resources. Even if SB 1396 does not address the state-to-district misallocation of existing categorical funds that Dr. Kirst references (and whatever the fiscal facts are now after the budget cuts), accountability for equity in serving the lowest performing students requires that districts ensure they are effectively directing their resources to the neediest students. We’ve heard the promises before of meeting student outcomes that close achievement gaps but that’s not happened. Flexibility in how the money is used might help close the gap but not flexibility in who the money is spent on. And in fact, the bill doesn’t require pilot districts to close the achievement gap, just make some progress in narrowing it. A weighted student formula ensures districts are making equitable effort on the right students — with the goal of closing, not just narrowing, the achievement gap. Thus, the pilot districts should be required to demonstrate that the new combined block grant, coupled with general purpose and any other funding at the district’s disposal, is allocated by a formula that is weighted toward the needs of students with limited-English proficiency and in poverty. In 2007, according to the LAO, California funded EL students at an implicit weight of 1.13 and low-income students at an implicit weight of between 1.11 and 1.26. English Learners and Economic Impact Aid, Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance, p 5. Legislative Analyst’s Office, April 10, 2007. Weights in pilot flexibility should not be lower than the implicit weights were in 2007 according to the LAO. Other states have established greater weights for low-income students and ELs. Public Advocates has proposed that EL weights be set at 1.2 and low-income students be set at an unduplicated weight of 1.30.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity