Charters choose Brown’s tax plan
Loyal to governor they can count on
Charter schools and the state’s largest teachers union rarely find anything to agree about. But the California Charter Schools Assn. is now the second major education group, next to the California Teachers Assn., to endorse Gov. Jerry Brown’s $7 billion tax initiative. The 13-member board of CCSA, representing most of the 982 charter schools in the state, voted unanimously to support it last week, said Jed Wallace, CEO of the charter schools association.
Brown has been leaning on political leaders to exclusively back his tax plan in order to put the squeeze on sponsors of two competing tax initiatives gathering signatures and make them drop out. But Brown didn’t call him, and he didn’t need to, said Wallace. “The governor’s is the one initiative that attempts to put the states’ broader fiscal house in order while providing some resources to education,” he said Sunday.
Then there’s the not insignificant factor that charter schools know they can count on the support of Brown, who started two charter schools in Oakland. The other two competing initiatives – “Our Children, Our Future,” sponsored by the PTA and wealthy civil rights attorney Molly Munger, and the Millionaires Tax of 2012, by the CTA’s little sibling, the California Federation of Teachers, with backing by the California Nurses Assn. – would dedicate more money for schools. Brown’s half-cent sales tax increase and quarter of 1 percent increase in the graduated income tax would produce money for the General Fund, with about 40 percent going to community colleges and K-12 schools through Propositon 98. But, through a weighted student formula, Brown is also proposing to make funding more equitable and simpler, a long-sought goal of charter schools.
A recent report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office calculated that charters receive on average $395, or 7 percent less funding per student than district schools, and that doesn’t take into consideration extra facilities costs that many charters face. Most of the difference is in smaller categorical grants, and the difference is larger for new charters. Nearly all categorical funds would gradually disappear under a weighted formula, to be redistributed to districts based on the number and concentration of low-income and English-learning students they serve.
At a forum last week at CCSA’s annual convention, State Board of Education President Michael Kirst estimated that nearly all charter schools would fare better under Brown’s formula. Also last week, Brown attended a rally for charter funding equity at the state Capitol.
Brown is proposing to raise the sales tax by a half cent for four years and the income tax on those earning more than $250,000 for five years. Brown would commit most of the education money to pay down $10 billion in deferrals, money owed to schools that the state pays in the next fiscal year. Deferrals have especially affected charters, many of which have to borrow the money owed by the state at higher short-term interest rates than district schools pay.
Nearly all charter schools are nonprofit organizations, with restrictions on involvement in political elections. But they can provide information to parents on the impact of the various initiatives on their schools, Wallace said.
Neither the California School Boards Association nor the Association of California School Administrators has yet taken a position on which initiative to support. Of the other members of the Education Coalition, the teachers unions are split, and the state PTA is backing Munger’s $10 billion increase in the income tax.
11 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 ..
Has the State produced any figures yet on what it “actually” costs to educate high school students in schools that heavily emphasize science and technology? I am still concerned that the “weighted formula” has not been thought through carefully in terms of ensuring that students not only continue to receive science and technology education, but that California makes some effort to remediate the woeful situation for so many students whose access to high quality teachers and resources in those subjects is already constrained. Bonds are the mechanism through which many districts have dealt with science facilities in particular, but if taxes are raised I don’t think Bonds/Parcel Taxes are going to be popular. As a teacher who taught many ESL and Bridging English classes, my costs were incredibly low in comparison with the AP Physics teacher, or the Computer Science teacher. Connecting the November proposition to the weighted funding promise may well be fine if weighted funding is found to be palatable, but I have looked at the figures provided by John, and the schools my kids attend certainly will not be able to bring their science and technology offerings into alignment with the school cluster we left, if all they have is the per student funding through 2018.
Many of the people who will be additionally taxed are probably (from my long experience) the very same parents who are already giving disproportionately to school foundations, PTO, field trips … the list goes on. If they are additionally taxed, they may no longer be able to provide the sums they were voluntarily contributing. If you then starve the more affluent schools of funds, while taxing the parents and community members more, will those schools keep those families? I think that there is under-appreciation of the number of teachers and programs currently supported by parents. If that base is eroded through additional taxation – will schools lose or benefit? I think there is a lot that has not been carefully evaluated! And apart from that – without any evaluative criteria in place by which to assess programs and assign money … what will children receive?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
There are areas in which charter schools’ and public schools’ interests converge, and obviously adequate funding is one of them. Teacher-bashing is another, of course — when teachers are depicted as the enemy who are “holding children back,” in the language of one Gates-funded ad campaign, that bloodies charter school teachers too.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The PTA/Molly Munger co-written, “Our Children Our Future”, is the only initiative that funnels money directly to schools without passing through Sacramento. It is also the only one that mandates parent, teacher and community input re how the money should be spent. It also raises the most money for the longest period of time. PTA has been in the trenches lobbying for kids for free for 115 years. My vote goes with them. http://www.ourchildrenourfuture2012.com/
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The problem in a depressed economy with inflation rearing it’s head at the gas pumps in the already overtaxed state, the problem isn’t which tax initiative on the ballot should be endorsed by California School Board Associatin or Association of School Administrators or ???
There is a third option not mentioned which would be appreciated by the taxpayers of California. Endorse neither of the of the iniatives. But while charter school interests wrangle with teachers’ unions, that third option is still left for the voters to choose come November.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Section 4, SEC. 14810 of the initiative reads:
Each year the governing board, in person or through appropriate representatives, shall seek input, at an open public meeting with the school’s parents, teachers, administrators, other school staff and students, as appropriate (the “school community”), at or near that school’s site, about how CETF funds will be used at that school and why. Following that meeting, the LEA or its appropriate representatives shall offer a written recommendation for use of CETF funds at a second open public meeting at or near the school site at which the school community is given an opportunity to respond to the LEA’s recommendation. The governing board shall ensure that, during the decision-making process regarding use of CETF funds, all members of the school community are provided an opportunity to submit input in writing or online. At the time it makes its decision about the use of the funds each year, the governing board shall explain, publicly and online, how its proposed expenditures of CETF funds will improve educational outcomes and how the board will determine whether those improved outcomes have been achieved.
This paragraph does not say that the LEA has to follow the community’s input nor does it say anything about what the community can do to force the LEA to respect its wishes. Thus, there is no “mandate”. Apart from codifying that LEA’s have to discuss their budgets, there is nothing in OCOF that makes it any better than the current system.
I don’t understand how California PTA, with 115 years of experience, missed this.
Also, OCOF “suggests” that the number of days of instruction should be increased. Yet, it also prohibits that the funds go towards salary increases. Isn’t this a likely contradiction?
And where are the metrics that define how programs paid by these funds have achieved their goals? Where are the penalties for failure?
Lastly, only 18% of the funds can go to low-income pupil grants. The state currently has 56.7% of its students classified as poor. Isn’t that promoting an inequality?
Oh, well, it is not a well-crafted sausage and, therefore, will vote against it.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
That’s a valid point. People are going to look at their bottom line and will act. From OCOF’s Section 8, SEC. 17041.1(a):
If the taxable income is: The additional tax on taxable income is:
Not over $7,316 0
Over $7,316 but not over $17,346 0.4% of the excess over $7,316
Over $17,346 but not over $27,37 $40 plus 0.7% of the excess over $17,346
Over $27,377 but not over $38,00 $110 plus 1.1% of the excess over $27,377 :
Over $38,004 but not over $48,02 $227 plus 1.4% of the excess over $38,004
Over $48,029 but not over $100,000 $368 plus 1.6% of the excess over $48,029
Over $100,000 but not over $250,000 $1,199 plus 1.8% of the excess over $100,000
Over $250,000 but not over $500,000 $3,899 plus 1.9% of the excess over $250,000
Over $500,000 but not over $1,000,000 $8,649 plus 2.0% of the excess over $500,000
Over $1,000,000 but not over $2,500,000 $18,649 plus 2.1% of the excess over $1,000,000
Over $2,500,000 $50,149 plus 2.2% of the excess over $2,500,000
For 2011, according to the FTB, the regular rates were:
If the taxable income is: The additional tax on taxable income is:
Not over $7,316 1%
Over $7,316 but not over $17,346 $73.16 plus 2% of the excess over $7,316
Over $17,346 but not over $27,37 $273.76 plus 4% of the excess over $17,346
Over $27,377 but not over $38,00 $675 plus 6% of the excess over $27,377 :
Over $38,004 but not over $48,02 $1,312.62 plus 8% of the excess over $38,004
Over $48,029 but not over $100,000 $2,114.62 plus 9.3% of the excess over $48,029
So let’s make it simple: a person (or family) whose taxable income is $48,029/year will see an increase of $368 in taxes from $2,114.62. That’s a 17% increase. That’s a noticeable bite and people are not going to say “oh, it is just 1.4% of total income.
For someone making more than $300,000, the tax would be 11.2% under OCOF and 10.3% under Governor Brown’s proposal (sorry, I can’t figure out what section of the law it refers to.). So it seems that Brown is not soaking the rich as much as OCOF.
But you are correct: if a family is making around $100k, their tax bill will go up by more than $700 and their contribution to their local school will probably dry up under OCOF. Not so under Brown’s as only those making over $250k are taxed under Brown’s. Under OCOF it is everybody. Even those at the poverty level.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Thank you for providing the tax numbers – very helpful.
The steep increase for those earning over $1,000.000 is going to be challenged! There will be more people seeking to “offshore” their income, and the “projected” income for the schools will be affected! This is just not the economic climate in which to float these initiatives, and will affect the soft money on which schools already depend.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Don’t LEAs already have to discuss their budgets in public, at regular board meetings? I see that requirement as just another odd categorical idiosyncratic moment during the budget process.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
For a family with children in school, even a $368 additional tax bill is probably less than the cost to drive the kids to school and find an extra week of child care.
Also, please remember that taxable income is substantially lower than gross income for most people. A family with a gross income of $100k with a mortgage and two kids may well be paying less than $1500 in state income tax currently. Those charts make it look like someone who has a $48k salary is paying over $2000 a year in state taxes, which is not likely to be the case.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Indeed. That is what makes it seem. But to all those who do their own taxes, as I do, it will be obvious that it is taxable income.
Still, if I am donating $300 to my kid’s school and it is a tax-deduction, and now I am hit with a $300 tax, which way am I going to go?
Now, to take your example, a $100k annual salary for a family of four with $10k of interest annually comes to about $75k in taxable income after all other deductions kick in (charitable contributions, child deductions, real estate taxes, etc.). That works out to around $4k in California state taxes and add another $600 if OFOC passes. So, it is still around a 15% increase.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
No, not really. They present an overall budget but they don’t present the budget for each school. And even when they do, they don’t tell you the expenses for, say, transportation, or “restricted program” funds, like Title I and the like. Plus they have wonderful ways of obfuscating where the money actually goes.
A fine example is a presentation given to LAUSD’s Board on October 26, 2010 during their “Budgeting for Student Achievement” dog-and-pony show. Here is the direct link to the pdf file (1.86 MB!). Or, if you prefer, navigate to their web page for that date. Or drill down from their home page, http://laschoolboard.org.
I could give you more links, but I don’t want to over do it.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity