If triage is the new goal of K-12 education, then school districts can claim success.

A survey by the Legislative Analyst’s Office revealed that districts are cutting programs that the Legislature once considered essential in order to keep core classes going. Districts reported that the flexibility to spend “categorical” money as they choose helped them keep teachers on the job and make their budgets.

Impressed with the first year’s spending flexibility, the LAO is recommending lifting the restrictions on some of the remaining categorical programs, including class-size reduction, which the teachers’ unions will fight to preserve, and school transportation.

That’s probably the right direction for the Legislature to take, as long as there’s accountability for how the money is spent and guarantees that categorical money originally committed to English learners and low-income children continue to be spent on them. There’s no way of knowing that now.

Categorical programs – money budgeted for specific purposes — comprised about a third of state spending on education. Last year, in cutting 20 percent of money for categorical programs, the Legislature removed restrictions on 40 programs, totaling $4.5 billion – 38 percent of the $13 billion allocated for categoricals.

Many of the 231 districts that answered the survey reported shifting money away from adult education, deferred maintenance and staff professional development, as well as from small classes in ninth grade, art and music, counseling and gifted students. These may not be as critical as core classes, but any reasonably funded system would consider them integral. (Check here to see how funding for gifted students has been all but eliminated, to the nation’s detriment, in many districts.)

At the same time, districts agreed that some programs should be minimally touched, such as community day schools for students at risk of dropping out.

The Legislative Analyst wants additional flexibility. SB 1396, sponsored by Sen. Alan Lowenthal and Gloria Romero, would do that, though on a pilot basis for Long Beach and two other districts. The LAO also recommends blending five grant programs for career education into one and judging the effectiveness on student  outcomes ­– numbers of student who go to college or get a good job ­– in return for spending flexibility.

Still to be resolved – and not dealt with by LAO  – is the issue of equity, ensuring that money once intended for minority kids is spent on them, with or without programmatic restrictions. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Committee on Education Excellence, in its 2007 report, had recommended reallocating categorical dollars to districts on a weighted student formula, with more money for poor kids and English learners. Since the Legislature is not likely revert to categorical grants again, after the waiver for flexibility ends in 2012, now is the time to start thinking about a fairer system.

The LAO’s survey also asked districts how they spent  stimulus money. The results offer insights as to why some districts are heading to next year in worse financial shape.

The feds gave California $6 billion, with $3 billion of that split between poor children (Title I) and special education and two years to spend it. But 40 percent of the districts spent nearly all of their share in 2009-10, instead of spreading it out,  creating a bigger deficit in the year ahead.

Districts also could have used stimulus money to create retirement incentives for some veteran teachers, to help save newer teachers’ jobs. But they didn’t.