Weighted formula’s impact
(Bear with me through the numbers)
In six years, when Gov. Brown’s proposed new funding system is fully phased in, the average statewide funding per student is expected to be $9,200. At that time, the per-pupil funding for Los Angeles Unified would be $1,250 higher per student – $10,460; Coachella Valley Unified, a 17,000-student district in Riverside County, would receive $12,162 per student.
At the opposite end, Pleasanton Unified, in Contra Costa County, would receive about $5,000 less per child than Coachella Valley – $7,198, or a little more than 1 percent above the $7,073 it’s scheduled to receive in Prop 98 funding next year. Berkeley Unified would get $8,212, only $515 more per child after six years of phasing in the new finance system.
The numbers, released last week by the Department of Finance, show the fundamental realignment in funding that would unfold under Brown’s weighted student funding formula. (Click here for the full statewide district-by-district breakdown. See the far right column for the additional dollars each district will get in 2017-18 compared with the proposed 2012-13 district per-student amounts in column 5. If you’re confused, hold tight; I’ll explain how to read the chart, using Alameda County, in a moment.)
In its broadest terms, the weighted student formula system gives extra dollars to districts with large numbers of English-learning students and those from families with low incomes – out of recognition that these children require extra resources to compensate for their disadvantages, and perhaps to attract and retain good teachers.
Those districts with very low percentages of these children not only would get relatively less, but, like Pleasanton, would not benefit, after years of facing substantial cuts in state funding, from what Finance officials are predicting will be substantial increases in Proposition 98 funding levels in the next half-dozen years.
Under the current system, districts get roughly the same basic per-student allotment (generally but not always within a 10 percent range), plus extra money from categorical programs for designated purposes – many of which do serve poor kids. Brown wants to throw most of the categorical money into a pot and redistribute it to the targeted children. Since some of the formulas for categoricals like Economic Impact Aid, home-to-school transportation, and Targeted Instructional Improvement Grants (desegregation funding favoring a handful of urban districts) are dated, one can argue that the new system would be fairer and simpler. However, because Brown is not guaranteeing minimal increases in base-level funding, some districts – particularly high school districts and rural districts with a lot of bus money – that benefited under the current system would lose out under a weighted system unless the formula is changed.
How your district might fare
In analyzing the district-by-district breakdown , keep the following points in the back of your mind:
- Brown builds in the assumption that his proposed temporary $6.8 billion tax initiative will pass in November. If it doesn’t, all bets are off.
- The Department of Finance assumes that Proposition 98 funding will increase a healthy 40 percent between now and 2017-18 as the state’s economy recovers. That’s why Brown can claim that, with very few exceptions, districts will do better in 2017-18 than in 2012-13.
- The weighted student system consists of a uniform base grant, comprising 68 percent of the Proposition 98 funding for the system, and the supplemental funding for disadvantaged students, making up the remaining 32 percent. The base grant will start out at $4,920 and grow to $6,660 in 2017-18.
- The weighted student formula does not include about $3 billion in categorical funds that would continue to be protected. The largest is special education funding, along with after-school and school nutrition programs.
- This is the first pass; Brown administration officials have indicated a willingness to change it, and, as you will see, there are reasons to do so.
- Basic aid districts – the roughly 10 percent of districts that are funded with property taxes alone – are not included, though they would be affected through a loss of categorical money.
District per-student funding for Alameda County, 2012-13 to 2017-18, with a weighted student funding formula. Click twice to make this chart large enough to read. (Source: Department of Finance)
Using Alameda County, above, to illustrate, the most important columns in the chart are 5, 11, and 14.
- Column 5: What each district will receive in per-student funding in 2012-13, pre-weighted student formula: $6,302 in the case of Alameda City Unified. No district will receive less than this. (HTS refers to home-to-school transportation, which will be protected next year only.)
- Column 11: The per-student funding in 2017-18, after the full implementation of the weighted student formula ($7,981 for Alameda City Unified).
- Column 14 (far right): The dollar difference between the 2012-13 and 2017-18 funding ($1,679 for Alameda City Unified).
As for the other columns:
- Columns 6-13: Brown is proposing to phase in the formula over six years; the columns show the effect on per-student funding and net difference over that time. In 2012-13, only 5 percent of per-student funding will include the weighted formula; the rest will be the current system. Brown is proposing to hold all districts harmless, with no loss of money next year only (column 6). So in 2013-14, without that protection, some districts, including Berkeley and Pleasanton, will lose some funding per student with the formula based 15 percent on the formula, 85 percent based on the old system. Some small rural districts with big busing expenses will lose the most under the new system unless busing as a categorical is protected, as some rural superintendents are proposing.
- Column 2: Number of students in the district
- Columns 3 and 4: The percentages of students who are English learners and are from low-income households. Extra dollars are based on these figures. (Since about three-quarters of English learners are also low-income students, there is overlap. The formula, however, does not double count. To estimate the correct number of non-low-income English learners, the Department of Finance multiplied the EL percentage by one-quarter and then added this percentage to the low-income percentage. In the case of Alameda City Unified, a quarter of 22.37 percent is about 6 percent EL, added to 32.5 percent low-income for a total population of disadvantaged of 38.5 percent.
Three quick observations:
- There are at least a couple of ways of comparing how your district would fare under a weighted student formula. One is to add 40 percent to the district’s 2012-13 per student funding to see how the district would do in 2017-18 under the current system, then compare that with 2017-18 funding under a weighted student funding. Another way is to compare the 2017-18 per student funding with $9,200, the statewide per student funding that year. (There clearly are some errors in the Department of Finance chart, Cambrian District in Santa Clara County the most obvious.)
- The funding of East Side Union High School District in San Jose, the state’s second largest high school district, illustrates the need for two potential changes to the formula.
One would be to continue the current funding system’s awarding of extra dollars to high school districts and, to a lesser degree, to unified districts, out of recognition that older students incur higher expenses. East Side Union would get $7,257 per student next year under the current system, nearly $1,000 above the state average. In 2017-18, it would get $8,155, more than $1,000 below the state average. For a district struggling to prepare students for college and the job market, that will be tough.
East Side Union may also be hurt by the use of free and reduced lunch eligibility as the criterion for the low-income weight. Signing up for lunches is voluntary, and fewer students do so in high school than in elementary school. East Side Union’s feeder districts are roughly 60 percent low-income. East Side Union is 40 percent. The drop will translate into a lot fewer dollars under the weighted formula. Using a district’s Title I numbers, which are based on census data, may be a more accurate measure.
- The formula gives bonus money to districts with high concentrations of disadvantaged students, starting when they comprise 60 percent of a student body. A district with 80 percent disadvantaged students w0uld get nearly $3,000 per student more than a district with 50 percent. The Legislature may want to examine the research justifying such a difference.
Thanks to Bob Blattner of Blattner and Associates of Sacramento and Nick Schweizer of the Department of Finance for walking me through the numbers. Blame me, not them, if there are any mistakes in translation.
28 Comments
Trackbacks
- Weighted formula’s heavy load | Thoughts on Public Education
- Brown wants financing reform | Thoughts on Public Education
Thank you for the analysis. I will be spending some time trying to get my head around it. For some reason, though, the list of districts is not complete.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
To add more context to Alameda County example, here are some more numbers. Due to the quirky rules of establishing base revenue limits when the State became the primary funder of local schools, school districts can vary widely. In Alameda county, most school districts are with $50 per student for base revenue limit funding, but two school districts are outliers.
Back in 2007/08 Alameda Unified School District received base amount of $5,777 per student. In 2007/08, Dublin USD they received a base amount of $6,680 per student. In 2007/08 Pleasanton USD received a base amount of $6,368 per student. The amount does not include categorical monies. For Alameda it was approxaimately $800 per student in 2007/08. In 2010/11 Alameda received $5,200 base amount.
From your chart Alameda would receive $6,302, Dublin $7,179 and Pleasanton $7,073 in 2012/13. By 2017/18, Alameda would receive $7,981, Dublin would receive $7,355 and Pleasanton would receive $7,198.
I am sure the outlier districts throughout the state will be fighting this new formula.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
No matter how I do the computations, I can’t get to the numbers from the DOF. Even if I use higher low-income and ELL students than in their report, I still can’t get to the high amount of revenue they show in future years. The math for the supplemental grant and the concentration factor do not add up.
Another factor to consider is that they are starting 2012-13 at the undeficited base revenue limit. Good luck ending the 21.666% deficit that is still in the governor’s budget for next year so that we can get to those numbers. Anyone willing to place a bet that the deficit will be zero by 2017-18? I’m not!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Does anyone know why certain districts are not on the list?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Bob: Which district won’t compute for you?
Nicole: Basic aid and “small but necessary districts” aren’t included. Are there others, too?
John
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John: I doubt Willits Unified in Mendocino County fits in either of those categories; it is not listed. It strikes me that there are several districts in the list that likely are small/necessary, since there are several with on order 100 students or less.
Why wouldn’t those two categories of schools be included, anyway?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I also would be interested to know why Basic Aid Districts are not included. Working for a small BA district in Napa County, this seems like it would have an incredibly substantial impact on us. Any and all information one way or the other would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
-Mike
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Really? I thought basic aid was the opposite. You use your own property taxes for funding and aren’t on ADA.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Basic Aid districts (who came up with that label anyway?) still get categorical money, so presumably this does affect them. I’d like to see them in the charts anyway, as a general sense of what money ends up where, how, and for what.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ah, TOP-ed discussion of basic aid and categoricals and funding… http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/03/02/lao-cut-basic-aid-districts-money/
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Basic aid districts are outside of the system because they have sufficient property taxes to fund schools beyond the revenue limit or basic state grant. They would lose categorical funding under this proposal, but they already have had substantial cuts in categoricals over the past few years anyway — the “fair share” equivalent to cuts experienced by revenue limit districts. Most basic aid districts lie in prosperous communities, but there are some basic aid districts — especially those on the cusp between basic aid and revenue limit — with sizable numbers of disadvantaged students. These districts could, in fact, benefit from the weighted student formula.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
So, just to be clarify: for next year, would the districts still get the remaining 95% of the categorical funding, 85% the following year and so on, with the categorical allocation reduced as the per student allocation goes up each year?
Thanks.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
el: this from my colleague at Silicon Valley Ed Foundation, Bob Nichols: “Basic Aid districts got their name in a strange way. The original California Constitution from the 1880’s or so has two education guarantees. One is that the public schools have first call on state finances over every other expenditure. The second is that every school district is guaranteed at least $125 per student in state funding. Other forms of state funding were added over the years right up to creation of the current Base Revenue Level funding system passed into law in the mid 70’s and added to by Prop 98 in 1988. Since some districts can generate more money per kid in property taxes than the BRL would give them, the only money they receive from the state is the “basic $125” put into constitution over a century ago. Thus the name “Basic Aid” to indicate that all they got from the state was the basic constitutional guarantee.”
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Yes, Carol, except the governor is proposing that starting in 2012-13, districts will have total discretion over how their categorical money, with few exceptions, is spent.Class size reduction could go toward textbooks or teacher raises or an extended day. 95 percent of the state’s money will be disbursed as before next year, then 85 percent, 60 percent, 40 percent, 20 percent, then 100 percent will be a combination base grant and weighted formula.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Judging by the Pleasanton scenario, the proposed formula would wreck some of the last few academically successful* school districts in the state. I strongly support recognizing the extra costs involved in serving English Learners and low-income families. Still, if we accomplish that at the expense of districts like Pleasanton, we will lose more students to charter and private schools. We will also lose their parents’ political advocacy.
* Caveat: For all its general academic success, Pleasanton was flagged a few months ago in a report, for achieving dismal results with its small population of minority students. I would argue that
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Paul, I agree. Sometimes I even think its by design. And when its not, its still with complicity of those who would normally fight against it. But I dont know that this is any different than the ‘normal’ situation. In some (most?) districts, policy-making has already come down to an almost simplistic tradeoff between serving all kids and forcing out active advocates for ‘quality’. Im not sure knowing the train is going to crash will make its brakes work any better.
This is why active parental engagement is so important.. imho anyway.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
My reservations about the ballot tax measure proposal lie with the allocation to low performing districts in favor of mine. The formula devised out of the Serrano vs. Priest lawsuit was flawed to begin with. ADA ought to fund every public school child EQUALLY–that was part of the reason for the decision. Districts were funded at the time based on spending practices, not need, and thus are inequitably funded at base levels today. THEN funding can be overlayed to meet student needs, currently funded as “categoricals” which has become legislator pet projects along with student needs. These programs never sunset and do not face adequate accountability standards.
I support education funding revisions that start ADA equal per pupil and then fund valid, student needs-based programs that include oversight and sunset. Re-financing such programs MUST meet verified ongoing need. Also meals before and after regular school hours ought NOT be part of the education budget, but social services or social welfare.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John, thank you for the story of “Basic Aid.” I am ROTFL. Lesson for the day: never hard code a constant when it should be a variable passed to a function.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Jeannette, one of the things to notice when people go on about Americans spending more per student than other countries is that our accounting system is different – those other countries often do fund things like student lunches or school nurses or employee health insurance or sports out of different budgets rather than account them to schools.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
There are districts that are not Basic Aid, and that are not small but necessary, that are not listed. I’m looking at Burlingame Elementary School District, specifically. Anyone know why they are not there?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
While the bulk of our funding does come from property taxes, we have seen this revenue source decrease dramatically over the past few years due to foreclosures, reassessment of property values, etc.
I understand that this affects categorical funding, but we’ve been told by our AB1200 coordinator at the county office that we could see another 1/3 of that money disappear as soon as 2013-2014. To a small school like ours, that’s still a big hit and will more than likely mean even more staff reductions. I guess I was hoping to see some REALLY good news on your chart!!!
Thanks for the information John. I have friends in other districts that are very interested in this!
-Mike
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Twin Rivers USD in Sacramento County.
Using the information provided in the District-by-District breakdown from DOF, we should receive from Column E $7,441 and Column F $7,456.
Using the DOF Formula provided in your prior article to include 25% of ELL (2,058) and all of FRPL (24,055) = 26,114 which is 87% of total ADA (30,137):
BG + BG * .37 * % Low Income + BG * 2 * .37 * % Low Income * (Low Income – .50) =
4920 + 4920 * .37 * .87 + 4920 * 2 * .37 *.87 * (.87 – .50) = $7,676
Base Grant = $4,920
Supplemental Grant = $1,584
Concentration Grant = $1,172
Total = $7,676
The School Services of California Fiscal Report uses the following formula:
BG + BG * .37 * % Low Income + BG * .74 * % over 50% =
4920 + 4920 * .37 * .87 + 4920 * .74 * .37 = $7,851
And I can’t judge future years since it appears the DOF is adding an undetermined COLA each year.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Rob: I don’t know about the COLA issue — didn’t come up in my discussion, but I came close (within $5 which is good enough for government work) to the DOF figure of $7,456 by multiplying .26 (percentage of nonduplicated ELs) by .2732 (ELs in the district), which equals .071; add that to .7982 (free and reduced) which equals .869 or close to 87 percent disadvantaged population; multiply that percent times 37 percent plus 22.2 percent (concentration factor) or 59.2 percent times $4,920 and you get $2,531. Add $4920 for $7,451. I may have left off a fraction of a percentage point in the formula.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“[P]olicy-making has already come down to an almost simplistic tradeoff between serving all kids and forcing out active advocates for ‘quality’.” Well, said, navigio.
It’s disturbing because these tradeoffs occur even within schools, at the department level. People believe that we are ’serving’ minority students by asking less of them. Some examples that I remember:
* “Our kids don’t understand work and mixture problems, but they are pretty good at cross-multiplying, so just do that.” [urban middle school math department head, helping me to plan the unit on proportion]
* “I wouldn’t use a rubric or anything. Just be glad they have binders.” [same department head, discouraging me from properly grading the binders that I'd required my students to keep]
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Late to this question / response , but there are at least a few questions that seem to be unanswered regarding basic aid districts. First, as Carol asked, under this proposal it appears the there is a phase-in to the removal of categorial money, with a “95% 2012-2013″, 85%, 60%, 40%, etc. Your (Mr. Fensterwald’s) initial response seems to imply that basic aid district will get phased in as well, but it isn’t absolutely clear: Does the phase-in apply to basic aid districts? Hearsay is, Basic Aid districts will be cut off “cold turkey” and possibly as soon as 2012-2013. (Is there an official statement to appease the coming RIF necessity?)
Second, removing categorical funding implies for 2012-2013 there can be no “fair share”? The second question is less important obviously if there is a phase in period, except the fair share gets reduced to 95%, 85%, etc…
Finally, what happens when (if? given the current CA trend to fiscal insolvency) there is a turnaround… does basic aid forever not get any CA money?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Can someone explain what’s going to happen to adult education in all this? Adult schools fear this reform is their death knell, but no one is talking about it. I appreciate that top public school priority has to go to K-12; but this institution, which has been around in some form since before the U.S. was a nation, is quietly being drowned in the bathtub.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity