Weighted formula’s heavy load
Suburban supes complain about reform
Some of the “losers” under Gov. Jerry Brown’s school finance proposal said their piece in testimony Tuesday before a subcommittee of the Assembly Budget Committee.
A half-dozen superintendents from suburban and rural districts detailed how Brown’s weighted student formula, favoring districts with large numbers of English learners and low-income children, would harm them. Their plight made it clear why the Education Coalition is opposing Brown’s plan, and why, save for massive revisions, the governor’s major education initiative will likely go nowhere this year. None of the superintendents invited to testify were from districts that would greatly benefit from the plan.
“We agree with the governor that complexities (of the current system) should be simplified,” said Gary Stevens, assistant superintendent of Roseville Union Joint High School District. But “shortchanging suburban high school students makes no sense. Reform is needed but it must be effective or our students will be losers.”
Brown’s finance reform also had plenty of supporters at the hearing, but they were primarily a score of high school students from Oakland and San Jose, organized by Public Advocates, who had about 30 seconds each in public testimony for making the case that their schools lack the resources of schools in wealthier districts. They argued that the Legislature must require that districts getting extra money for disadvantaged students spend the dollars on those students.
It’s an important point – one that Brown has not dealt with directly. But it’s also a step ahead of the debate. There’s no consensus yet on how many dollars should be redistributed or on which needy students should get them – and how soon.
Brown wants to simplify the current funding system by ending categorical programs and redistributing the money to students of need. Every English learner or low-income student would get 37 percent more funding, and those districts with concentrations of disadvantaged students would get increasingly larger bonus percentages. A district with 90 percent disadvantaged students would get a 66 percent bonus per student, compared with a 15 percent per-student bonus for a district with 40 percent disadvantaged students. (See explanation of the plan.)
Brown’s formula is based on a plan proposed four years ago by State Board of Education President Michael Kirst and others, but with key differences. Brown’s base level of per-pupil spending is much lower; the poverty and EL supplements are higher; Kirst’s formula awarded more per-student aid to high school districts, as does the current system; and the administration’s formula, unlike Kirst’s, does not hold districts harmless, except for the first year of a six-year phase-in.
The result would be disastrous for Conejo Valley Unified, said Superintendent Jeffrey Baarstad. If it were fully implemented this year (which Brown is not proposing), the district would lose $18 million out of a $155 million budget. By 2017-18, the cut would grow to $36 million. That’s because Brown is proposing an initial base of $4,920, equivalent to the 2002 level of spending for the district, Baarstad said. And, with a student body that is 29 percent English learners or low-income, the weighted supplement would amount to only an additional 11 percent extra per student or $528 initially, compared with $3,276 per student in a district with 90 percent disadvantaged students.
There’s too much weight given to the concentration factor, Baarstad said. If additional Proposition 98 revenue over the next six years only goes to redistributing money and not restoring funding that all districts have lost in the past four years, “we will find ourselves among the poorest districts in the United States.”
Brown’s formula assumes a growth in funding of $16 billion or nearly 40 percent in six years, starting with voter approval of a tax increase in November. But if that fails, Brown is proposing an additional $450 per student cut. And if the Department of Finance’s revenue projections fall short, Baarstad and the other superintendents want to know how that would affect implementing the weighted student formula.
Backwards approach to reform
The chief problem with Brown’s formula, says Sacramento school consultant Bob Blattner, is that it is “reductive” instead of “additive.” Instead of first determining an adequate level of base funding for students and adding to it a supplemental amount for disadvantaged students, then calculating how much new money would be needed, the administration’s proposal, Blattner wrote in an analysis, “rolled out in precisely the reverse order.” First it determined the available funding, which coincides with historically low levels, then it deducted the supplemental funding needed for targeted students. What was left was a base funding amount “far less than any reasonable estimation of what a base funding amount should be.”
Blattner and others are also questioning the assumptions and components of the weighted formula:
- Justification for the 37 percent weight for needy students;
- Whether a non-low-income English learner should get the same supplement as a low-income child;
- Research behind the concentration factor and why the add-on should start at 50 percent, then rise sharply so that a district with a 90 percent poverty/English learner population gets twice the supplement as a district with a 50 percent targeted population. The latter district may have two high schools with a heavy concentration of low-income students yet get less funding than a small district with only low-income students.
One could also argue that a district with a smattering of disadvantaged students needs more money per student to meet their needs.
The concentration factor should be based on data, Blattner said, should not be arbitrary – a “Laffer curve on the back of a napkin in the Capitol cafeteria,” referring to the offhand drawing that became the basis for Ronald Reagan’s supply-side ec0n0mics.
The criticisms of the specific plan don’t rebut the need for a weighted formula and additional money for English learners and poor children. But they do point to what’s been missing: a policy debate over how the formula should be designed and phased in.
What’s needed, said Julia Brownley, chair of the Assembly Education Committee, is a balance between restored funding and equitable funding.
For more than a year, Brownley has been looking at finance reform through AB 18. It would also channel extra money to English learners and poor children, but through a block grant approach. It would require up-front accountability for spending the money on those students.
Brownley hasn’t settled on a weight or a timeline for phasing it in, but she says she plans to continue working on the bill. Brown’s proposal has served as “a bucket of cold water,” waking up people to the importance of finance reform, she said yesterday. That, in turn, could spur action on AB 18 this year, or turn off legislators to trying.
I wonder whether the goal really is to punish self-segregation.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I think this sums up my concerns pretty well:
The chief problem with Brown’s formula, says Sacramento school consultant Bob Blattner, is that it is “reductive” instead of “additive.” Instead of first determining an adequate level of base funding for students and adding to it a supplemental amount for disadvantaged students, then calculating how much new money would be needed, the administration’s proposal, Blattner wrote in an analysis, “rolled out in precisely the reverse order.” First it determined the available funding, which coincides with historically low levels, then itdeducted the supplemental funding needed for targeted students. What was left was a base funding amount “far less than any reasonable estimation of what a base funding amount should be.”
The basic theory of it works for me, though perhaps allocating by school rather than by district would be more appropriate for some of the other reasons mentioned above.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It really hurts to hear districts who, in the current inequitable system, are “winning”. They talk about having no schools in improvements status, having an abundance of college and career prep opportunities for their students, and how they all serve less than 50 % of low income and English Language learners.
The premise of moving to a weighted student formula is to improve the opportunities, educational experience, and success rates of our states most needy students. For the first time in years, we have an opportunity to validate the experiences of the young men and womyn who spoke yesterday and at the Senate budget hearing in February, to acknowledge that they have been left in the shadows in this current system. That they have been all but forgotten and left to FAIL!
We have an opportunity before us to show these young people that this state cares for them, and wants to make education a relevant part of their lives, where they can strive and break the cycles of poverty that their families and communities have been plagued with for generations.
But instead of moving forward with such a plan, our elected officials put political agendas and excuses such as “an economic crisis is not the time to make such a dramatic change in educations funding system” or “we are going to create a system of winners and losers”.
FYI the current system has already created a system of winners and losers, those losing are students from low income communities, predominantly students of color. Our students cannot wait any longer for a shift where they can begin to feel like they are winning. And receive the equitable resources they need to become successful. Equitable is does not mean Equal! Giving more weights to the most needy students and having them succeed will benefit the entire state!
Keeping this current inequitable system in place, and especially keeping it in place to appease a hand full of districts who find it unacceptable to see their per pupil funding drop $4920 (Oakland students are currently receiving $4300-$4500 per student) is nothing less than discrimination against these students!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Sergio, I share your concerns about equity but fear that the proposed plan would destroy academically successful school districts. Losing those students to charter or private schools, and losing their parents’ political support, would damage the entire public education enterprise. Basically, there would be fewer successes left to point to.
I would be happy to see resources added to schools and districts that serve large numbers of low-income families and English Learners. Still, I don’t believe that anyone has found a universal solution — within the context of a regulated, compulsory, students’ rights/parents’ rights-oriented public school system — to serving low-income students or English Learners. Money is not a solution in and of itself. My suspicion is that groups of students who perform poorly today will perform poorly tomorrow. What happens within the school has an impact, but what happens outside (especially cultural norms, patterns of linguistic development, parental influence, and student attitude) has a much bigger impact.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Money is not the answer to solve this and other social justice issues facing low income communities and communities of color today, but its a start. Extra money and resources aimed at this population will start to improve the classroom environment, will be helpful to get these students updated materials and provide supports in forms of programs, all of which the suburban schools already have. And your right, what happens outside the school walls is just as important, and thus investing in these students and schools will allow for programs that will give students the supports to get in the school setting that they are not getting at home!
How long do these students, who come from these schools, have to wait get the real supports that they need? Success doesn’t happen overnight but if we keep making excuses as to why we cant do this now, it will never happen for these communities!
Telling a student from a low income community that we dont want to make the shift that will dramatically change the way their education looks at them and serves them because we dont want their predominantly white middle to upper middle class counterparts to get hurt, wont feel good and should not be accepted! Again we are painting a picture of potential winners and losers, when the picture is clear now that this system is unjustly failing our students who are losing NOW!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Can someone explain to me why Oakland is only getting $4300 per student from the state (title 1 etc is on top of that, right?) when I understand the revenue limit number for this year is closer to $5000 (depending on what day it is today)?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I agree that the current system doesn’t work. But guess what. I work with predominantly low income students of color (aka Native Americans) in a small, rural district that is about to be DECIMATED by this new funding plan. I’m guess you work in a large district with lots of EL or impoverished students (probably in a city). The problem is that rural districts are getting raped by the new plan. How about the fact that ROP programs are going to be completely cut in many district including mine. That’s right, no more electives for you kiddies. No art, no music, no computer classes, etc. How is that helping minority students?
Take a step back and realize that this new weighted formula is not helping all districts equally — it is not helping all students who need the extra money. In fact, it is really hurting entire segments of the population, like Native Americans, who mostly live in rural areas, not the inner-city.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity