Paths to school finance reform
PPIC studies suggest steps to be taken now
The state’s system of funding K-12 schools is inadequate, inequitable and opaque.
Only taxes, time (the next two decades of passively watching the economy improve) or a settlement of the Robles-Wong v California lawsuit can fully address the issue of insufficient school funding. But the Legislature can take steps now to make school funding fair and transparent, researchers for the Public Policy Institute of California conclude in two studies released on Tuesday.
“Pursuing structural reforms today will not only meet a critical need but will also help California be better prepared tomorrow, when it can afford to invest more in its K–12 system than it does now,” PPIC research associate Margaret Weston writes in At Issue: School Finance Reform
Outdated funding formulas set in the 1970s, combined with dozens of categorical programs that the Legislature earmarked for specific purposes, have created quirky, complicated district allocations that defy explanation, let alone justification. (As one example, the study cited $1,000 per student funding differences in base revenue allotments among three elementary districts in the same Southern California zip code.)
The studies recommend combining the categorical programs – a process that the Legislature has already begun – while simplifying and equalizing per student funding, with extra money for low-income students. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Committee on Education Excellence recommended this weighted, per student funding approach, and Gov.-elect Jerry Brown has said he favors it, too. Stanford emeritus professor Michael Kirst, Brown’s chief education adviser, co-authored a study 2½ years ago that factored in regional costs of living, as well as poverty. So the timing is good to raise the issue again now.
The PPIC studies are agnostic as to the formula. Some alternatives give high schools extra money or schools with more expensive career and technical education programs. But the more factors, the more complicated the allocation becomes and the harder to explain to the public.
The studies assume that finance reform will not leave districts with less per student funding than they already receive. The good news is that student population in coming years is projected to grow slowly in relation to taxpayer income, resulting to higher per student funding under Proposition 98. The bad news is that it will take until 2030 to substantially increase K-12 spending, short of raising additional revenue, according projections in the second study, Pathways for School Finance in California. Settling two school finance lawsuits, brought by statewide education groups and attorneys for poor families, could accelerate additional funding.
The PPIC studies recommend five principles for a framework for allocating new revenues and creating a more efficient school finance system:
- Provide additional revenue to districts facing different resource needs – the weighted student formula;
- Structure incentives properly: Don’t inadvertently reward districts that fail struggling students;
- Allocate funds transparently so that the allocations can be easily understood;
- Treat similar districts equitably;
- Balance state and local authority: Give districts more control over revenues in exchange for a higher level of accountability.
The Pathways study, an expansion of the At Issue paper, was written by Weston, Jon Sonstelie, professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Heather Rose, an assistant professor in the School of Education at the University of California, Davis.
“The state’s system of funding K-12 schools is inadequate, inequitable and opaque.”
A better conclusion would be to call it inequitable and opaque, but not inadequate. There is already plenty of money wasted in the system.
Consequently, the first of the five recommendation ought to be stricken:
Provide additional revenue to districts facing different resource needs – the weighted student formula;
That will happen anyway, whether by design or by reality, in the next few years. Public education priced itself out of the market. If our public schools can’t educate 25 youngsters for a north of $200,000 a year, they deserve to be dismantled.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Page 32 of the “Pathways for School Finance” document states “In 2003–04, teachers with the same level of education and experience averaged compensation just under $55,000 per year in the North Coast and Yolo Counties but over $70,000 annually in Santa Clara and Orange Counties (Rose et al. 2008).”
Adjusting for a cumulative 15 percent increase in the past seven years, this would place average teacher compensation on the North Coast & Yolo County at $62,500 and Santa Clara/Orange Counties at $80,500.
Teachers work hard. No question about that. But, these compensation numbers demonstrate that public school teachers earn substantially more than median income in their communities of residence - in all parts of the state. And their compensation is higher than a majority of local workers when scaled on a 12 month cycle with no more than four weeks total time off per year. If one makes $80,500 for ten months work, in addition to pension contributions, then even in the most expensive communities in California, that’s solid. Is it “Buy a home” good? Probably not in many places. But, is it equitable compensation for a Master’s Degree in CA? It’s actually better compensation than many MA holders expect in this economy, since $80,500 for ten months equates to $96,600 for 12 months for a Bay Area or OC resident and $62,500 for ten months equates to $75,000 for 12 months for a North Coast resident.
A small owner would have to earn at least $130,000 a year to match teachers’ compensation, when accounting for taxation and funding one’s retirement plan. Many college grads in California work two jobs to make ends meet. And, with more than 2/3 of public school parents not holding a college degree, those moms and dads of public school kids are cranking out a lot of work hours to live paycheck-to-paycheck. Teachers are, for the most part, compensated substantially higher than the parents of the students they teach.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Chris: I will return to this issue when I can, but previous studies have shown that the average teacher’s salary in California is less than that of other workers with a BA degree, and the salary for an average Bay Area teacher is less than that of an average Bay Area worker in a job requiring a BA degree. One study cited by UC Davis Professor Heather Rose is High Expectations, Modest Means (http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=326 pages 26-28, data sources page 96). (Data sources: Occupational employment survey for non-teachers, NCES data for teacher salaries.) Comparisons get more complicated when factoring in benefits.
I don’t know about a comparison for teachers with master’s degrees with other workers with master’s degrees. Since there is no correlation with master’s degrees with student achievement, an overall ed reform strategy would pay teachers based on performance, not academic degrees.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It’s not sound or valid to compare teachers’ pay to the OVERALL median income. You need to compare to the median income for other professionals whose jobs require the same level of education and credentialing. I apologize for being able to cite the problem but not having the resources to research the appropriate data to correct it.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Yes, something needs to be done. Even if there is less money, knowing from year to year what that amount would be adds to the ability to plan and provide the best services for our students. Those who believe the system already has enough money, and it waste money need to go to schools and look at budgets (they are public documents), and see how tightly funds are used. Most districts have made nearly 15 to 20 % cuts over the last three years, and more are on the way. Funding for public education in California which at one time was in the top five in the nation is 47th out of 50 states. In addition it is inequitable as districts in high income areas are passing parcel taxes to keep programs in place that districts in middle and lower income areas cannot do. However, that all aside, schools because of the current economy and years of our economy living high off the hog, will not produce the revenue it did in the past years, so schools will have to do with less. We need a stable funding system, and we need to make sure schools can plan so that their efforts each are in education, not in planning for what to eliminate. It can and must be done.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity