Thumbs down for finance reform
Ed Coalition criticizes timing and formula
The Education Coalition, the powerful alliance of groups representing school employees, districts, and parents, has panned Gov. Jerry Brown’s sweeping proposal for school finance reform and implied that he should abandon the push for it this year. Their disapproval makes it unlikely Brown will succeed if he persists.
“This is the worst possible time to ask school districts to consider changes to the school funding formula,” the Coalition said in a one-page statement issued last week.
The Education Coalition opposes Gov. Brown's weighted student formula for finance reform. Click to enlarge.
Brown wants to consolidate billions of dollars of special programs, known as categorical funds, then redistribute the money based on the numbers of English learners and low-income children in a school district. Districts with high concentrations of disadvantaged children would gain thousands of dollars per student as the program is phased in over the next six years. But revenues of districts without a lot of poor kids would remain static, locked into a low base of spending after four years of substantial Proposition 98 cuts. Average per-pupil spending is 10 percent below 2007-08 levels in actual dollars and 20 percent below what is statutorily promised.
“While the proposal is designed to achieve a number of laudable goals, it would essentially make permanent the $20 billion in cuts that schools have endured over the past four years,” the statement said. “Without additional revenues and a hold harmless provision, the consolidation proposal would result in some districts receiving additional funds at the expense of others, essentially ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul.’”
Any redistribution formula will create relative winners and losers; the Coalition’s message to the governor is: After the fiscal equivalent of Hurricane Katrina, everyone, not just the poor neighborhoods, needs money to rebuild. The unstated political message: Passing a tax increase should be your priority; don’t give middle-class voters in “loser” districts reason to vote no.
The nine groups approving the statement are the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA); California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO); California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA); California Federation of Teachers (CFT); California School Boards Association (CSBA); California School Employees Association (CSEA), representing non-certified school employees; California State PTA; California Teachers Association (CTA); and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), representing other non-certified school workers.
The statement, a consensus document, does not criticize the details of Brown’s weighted student formula. Others have questioned the specific weights – or extra percentage of funds – for low-income children and English learners, the failure to give extra money to high school districts, and the rationale for substantial bonus funding for districts with high concentrations of disadvantaged students. Instead, the statement calls for a more detailed analysis on the impacts on individual districts, with or without the passage of Brown’s proposed tax increase. And it wants Brown’s proposal to be vetted fully as a policy change, with a public hearing (Brown had presented his plan as part of his 2012-13 budget).
Representatives of the groups declined to comment beyond the statement; they said they planned to request a meeting with Brown to discuss their objections. Even without formal opposition, Brown would be hard-pressed to gain passage of such a major proposal in just a few months.
13 Comments
Trackbacks
- The Educated Guess: Thumbs down for finance reform : SCOE News Reader
- Weighted formula’s heavy load | Thoughts on Public Education
That’s nice. Should we deem them the “coalition of NO” since all they do is oppose any change to the system and have no answers (other than taking more money from taxpayers) on how to fix the education funding formula?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
There’s a lot to like in the concept of weighted student funding, but exempting basic aid from the conversation makes it tinkering at the margins. If we’re going to overhaul, then let’s overhaul the entire school funding formula for all schools in the state.
I do agree with the Coalition’s position that policy on this scale should not be made through the Trojan horse of the budget.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The Education Coalition’s response is perhaps one of the best arguments for pressing forward with reform now. If California waits for the Coalition’s points to be addressed, we’ll never have a rational, comprehensible, or equitable system.
Specifically, if one takes the Coalition’s points at face value:
1) Their first point argues that we can’t equalize funding for the programs “without fully funding them.” Given that most of these programs are roughly 20 percent or more short-funded (not including massive deferrals), it’s unlikely that we’ll ever reach full funding in the foreseeable future. Thus, the Coalition seems to be taking the position that reform will never be possible.
2) Their second point, that funding has been cut and is likely to be cut again doesn’t speak specifically to any point. If examined, it could easily be used as an argument in favor of the Governor’s proposal. Districts and schools that are currently short-funded arguably need reform and equalization in order to protect a basic level of operations that high-flying districts, especially rich Basic Aid districts, don’t need.
3) Their third point, arguing for long-term hold-harmless provisions falls flat for the same reasons as their first point. It would be nice to see a more constructive response here beyond “nyet.” The Governor, in contrast, has expressed a willingness to discuss modifications, including recently adding a one-year hold-harmless provision and offering to continue funding for the grossly inequitable Home-to-School Transportation program for another year.
4) The fourth point, arguing that this proposal belongs in policy committee, appears to be a procedural delay tactic to divert the debate into additional committee hearings. The legislature’s education policy committees are hardly a model of forward policy thinking and instead more typically function like the reform equivalent of a black hole.
5) The fifth point, that there should be detailed analysis, is a good one. The Governor’s staff have been unusually candid and forthcoming in providing detailed draft legislation, additional explanatory memoranda, briefings in numerous settings for legislators, legislative staff, lobbyists, and the media, and have begun to release detailed, district-by-district projections. In my 20 years of budget-watching in Sacramento, I’ve never seen anything approaching this level of transparency and candor. Unfortunately, the Coalition is doing seemingly nothing to advance this analysis.
There are plenty of legitimate issues regarding the reform proposal that should be under discussion. The extreme degree of concentration funding proposed, for example, seems to have limited basis in either research or practical budgeting reality. The proposal could also seemingly benefit from an “all-in” approach, including programs that the Governor would exclude, such as special education, facilities, QEIA, and the like.
It’s very disappointing to see the Education Coalition continuing to cement its reputation as the great stick in the mud instead of coming forward with constructive proposals to bring simplicity, transparency, and equity. If the Coalition can’t get its act together, the voters could hardly be blamed for rejecting tax increases in November. Perhaps what we need is a sharp limit or cap on the amount of funding a school district may spend on advocacy and membership in education advocacy groups.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Absolutely detailed analysis of what happens where and how and to who needs be be extremely clear before proceeding. And, districts need time to understand those changes *and* to plan for them.
You’d be mad to support this proposal not knowing how it will affect each district in advance, both positive and negative. Does it do enough for needy districts even? Does the funding formula actually make sense once you apply it? What categoricals did we forget to fund (ie CTE/ROP)? It’s a big change and it should have thorough analysis and discussion, including all the edge and corner cases.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I actually have just the opposite reaction than el.
object.
Rather than insisting on “absolutely detailed analysis … where … and how and to who[m]” I could argue that this is precisely the wrong approach. If we want to reform an admittedly broken system then we want to focus on the broad guidelines that we want to establish, rather than worry — precisely, no less — who will be affected and by how much. Currently everyone needs to constantly jigger their budgets anyway so it may be the best time to introduce changes. If we examine the impact on every district it will give time to organize lobbying to tinker for the advantage of individual districts and we all know who will win those — the entrenched big players, the LAUSD, SFUSD, etc. Small wonder that the variety of TLAs and FLAs (3-letter and 4-letter acronyms
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The Molly Munger/PTA initiative, “Our Children, Our Future”, is the ONLY one that funnels money directly to school sites and mandates parent and community input re how the money should be spent. Local control is the only way to go. Any initiative that gets money to the schools directly and avoids the black hole that is Sacramento gets my vote. PTA lobbying for our kids - for free — for 115 years.
Today, our state ranks 47th nationally in what we invest to educate each student. We have the largest class sizes in America. Over the last three years, more than $20 billion has been cut from California schools and over 40,000 educators have been laid off. We are shortchanging our early childhood development programs, which are some of the best educational investments we can make. Our underfunded public preschool programs serve only 40 percent of eligible 3 and 4 year olds, and only five percent of very low-income infants and toddlers have access to early childhood programs.
“Our Children, Our Future” asks Californians to join together to invest in our children and our schools because we all share in the benefits of better schools and a better-educated workforce. Our Children, Our Future will also reduce the cost of education bonds to help end the state deficit and protect our children and schools from further budget cuts.
The measure will raise $10 to $11 billion annually in new revenue through a sliding scale income tax increase that varies with taxpayers’ ability to pay. For couples, the increases range from 4/10ths of 1% on incomes after all deductions under $35,000 to 2.2% for couples with income after all deductions over $5 million. Couples would pay nothing on the first $15,000 of their income after all deductions, and existing tax credits will offset increases for most couples with income after all deductions of $40,000 or less. A couple earning $75,000 in income after all deductions would pay an additional $428 each year, while a couple earning $1.5 million after all deductions would pay $27,266 more.
The money will be placed in a separate trust fund that can only be spent as authorized by the provisions of the Act. The Governor and Legislature are prohibited from using the money. It cannot be used to increase current teacher salaries, but can be used to hire additional teachers, i.e., P.E. and staff, i.e., school nurses and to support programs that have been lost, i.e., the arts.
No more than 1% of money raised by the The Molly Munger PTA “Our Children, Our Future” initiative will go towards administrative costs – mandated. The initiative will raise $10 billion for schools per year for twelve years. Every child in the state will benefit. The money goes into a trust and does not pass through Sacramento. Parent, teacher, community input re how money will be spent at each school site is mandated as well. At this point in time, CA would need to spend an additional $60,000 a year, per classroom, just to catch up to the national average — that is a fact. CA has the highest ratios of students to teachers, students to counselors, students to administrator in the country — that is a fact. We are shortchanging all of our kids and have been for many years.
PTA, the largest volunteer organization lobbying for children, supports “Our Children, Our Future”. PTA has been in the trenches advocating 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
John, three questions:
1) has Governor Brown’s WSF never been discussed in light of merging it with Brownley’s AB18 (Targeted Pupil Equity Funding)? See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_18_bill_20110705_amended_sen_v96.html
2) what is the fate of AB18, which passed one house but not the Senate? Is it dead because of Brownley’s run for Congress?
3) have the above-named groups that gave Governor Brown’s WSF the thumbs down (too punitive, creates winners and losers) weighed in on AB18?
In short, I’m wondering what the barriers are to offering an amendment to Brownley’s bill containing some of what the Governor wants, and fast-tracking it through the current legislative session.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
What better time is there to reform an historically byzantine, disfunctional, and unequal school funding system than at that point in time when the system has all but collapsed? Granted, change is tough, but the status quo is an abysmal alternative. Thank you Eric for your thoughtful and cogent response to Fensterwald.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Eric,
Basic Aid districts are not included in the Governor’s finance reform proposal, other than being affected by the elimination of almost all categoricals.
I’m in a “low wealth district” that receives less than the state average Revenue Limit funding. In 5 years we will get an additional $1400 per pupil, but we’ve been cut more than that since 2008.
In 2017 our per pupil funding will be $7404, while other revenue limit schools will receive more than $14,000 per pupil. We have 13% free lunch, but how can any level of poverty and ELL justify that kind of inequity in funding? Our kids are getting sick more frequently because we have 40 to 45 in a class. The close proximity and lack of proper custodial care is creating a health hazard in our 34,000 student school district. Not to mention the massive deterioration in the quality of education.
But for the volunteers and fundraisers, our school system would have collapsed already.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Cynthia: The governor didn’t consult with Brownley in creating his weighted formula, but she told me yesterday that she plans to continue working on AB 18. For the first time, at the Budget subcommittee hearing, Brownley criticized the Administration’s proposal. The Ed Coalition’s response to his formula may revive her bill. I touch on that in tomorrow’s post.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Ze’ev - unless you have clear goals for who you want to help, for the minimum funding, and take it across all the special cases of different districts – and if there’s one thing that’s become apparent to me, it’s how different each district is financially – I don’t think you know if this formula reaches those goals.
The hypothesis is that the only important factor is % school lunch and %ELL. But, there are a lot of categoricals going away and being wrapped up in this. Transportation. ROP/CTE. What about Special Ed? How are charters affected?
Let’s please validate the hypothesis before grinding the kids through it instead of blithely assuming it can’t be worse than it is.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity