Weighted formula in waiting
Lawmakers want more info on Brown's plan
With the cancellation of today’s joint hearing with the Senate and Assembly Education Committees, the Brown administration has dodged – for now – tough questioning on the governor’s plan for a weighted student formula.
Today’s session would have been the first formal look by the two key education policy committees at the sweeping school finance proposals that Brown announced in his budget in January.
But Brown administration officials have implied that the plan, which would funnel substantially more money to low-income students and English learners, is still being adjusted as part of the governor’s revised budget that he will release next week. So it was premature to scrutinize district-by-district impact of a formula that could significantly change.
Still, the cancellation means that it will likely be mid-June – a few weeks before the deadline for passing the budget itself – before the two Education Committees will be able to question the administration about the revenue assumptions, the rationale behind the formula, and ramifications of removing spending restrictions on nearly all categorical programs.
The Education Coalition, consisting of associations representing unions, school boards, school administrators, and the state PTA, oppose moving on finance reform this year, on the grounds that long-suffering districts need money restored before redistributing what they now have. Brown has proposed phasing in finance reform over six years, but the Ed Coalition remains resistant and worried about the impact of a major reform on the tax initiative voters will consider in November (i.e., don’t rock the boat now).
Legislative leaders feel that Brown is trying to jam them by making the formula part of his budget, rather than a separate policy bill that would be picked apart, probably over two years. You can sense some frustration in questions that Assembly Education Committee Chair Julia Brownley and Senate Education Committee Chair Alan Lowenthal sent to the Department of Finance and others invited to participate in the hearing:
- By eliminating virtually all of the categorical programs (adult ed, prof devel, GATE, ELA, etc.), the Governor’s proposal essentially deregulates public school funding. If we’re going to do this, shouldn’t we also have a comprehensive, robust accountability system to create the incentives to make sure we get the outcomes we want? (Sue Burr, executive director of the State Board of Education, has said that the State Board will create new accountability measures over the next year.)
- If in November the voters reject new revenues for schools, how do we move forward with this transition?
- What is the rationale for not having funds “follow pupils” but rather directing them to districts to spend as they please? … how can the state be sure resources intended for English learners don’t get spent on something else?
Brown is proposing to fund every student a base amount – $4,920 to start – and then add “weights,” with an extra 37 cents for every dollar going to poor kids and English learners, with double that for districts with heavy concentrations of the disadvantaged. The committee wants the administration to justify the weights and to present a district-by-district breakdown showing how the formula would work, were it fully implemented this year. That would show clear winners and losers. So far, the administration has offered a first pass showing how it would work in 2017-18; by then, natural increases in revenue would mitigate the effect on “the losers,” those districts with few disadvantaged students.
Even though mainstream ed groups are critical, Brown is counting on the support of advocacy groups and of legislators, thus far quiet, representing districts that clearly would benefit from weighted student funding: Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Santa Ana.
This shows the impact on districts of a weighted student formula once fully implemented in 2017-18 under the governor's proposal in January, although aspects are likely to change in his revsed budget. By 2017, the Department of Finance is predicting that education revenues will increase 41 percent on their own. So the biggest effect would be on districts whose revenues would increase less than 30 percent (the 350 "losers" serving 28 percent of students) or more than 50 percent (the 277 district "winners" serving 32 percent of students). Source: PPIC. (Click to enlarge.)
Last week his plan was praised by three researchers affiliated with the Public Policy Institute of California. “Overall, Governor Brown’s weighted pupil-funding formula is a bold proposal with clear priorities,” wrote Heather Rose, Jon Sonstelie, and Margaret Weston in an analysis of the governor’s proposal.
Their 12-page analysis gives a good overview of Brown’s plan and a breakdown of the overall impact on the state’s school districts by 2017-18, when the Department of Finance is projecting that increased state revenues will boost per-student funding 41 percent.
According to the Rose, Sonstelie, and Weston analysis, 45 percent of the state’s students, attending 317 school districts, will be funded within 10 percentage points of the 41 percent increase (this assumes Brown’s tax initiative passes in November). But a third of students, attending 366 districts, would see per-student funding increases of more than 50 percent. For students attending districts with nearly 100 percent disadvantaged students, that would yield $4,000 to $5,000 more per student by 2017-18.
Essentially this is a proposal to shift funding to the children of illegal immigrants. Are Californians going to support this?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
That’s an obnoxiously coy graphic. If they had data to make that, then they know the exact numbers for each district. It’s time to put it out on the table and look at the real results.
Among my concerns is that the two measures of low income and ELL don’t accurately capture which districts have disadvantaged populations nor do they appropriately capture the costs to educate the students they do have. There’s no way to evaluate that without the names of the districts next to the revenue change numbers.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Actually, this is a proposal to fund the education of those children who are most in need, specifically children in California who have historically struggled academically due to the impacts of poverty and not having a strong enough grasp on the English language to excell academically. Immigration status has nothing to do with whether we provide all of our kids with an education that leads the state into the 21st century, where jobs will necessarily be focused on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, or where we say it’s ok to fail and as a result, shape a state economy that is based on low-wage service and retail jobs because those are the only jobs most of our kids are equipped to do.
Personally, I want all of our kids making 6 figure salaries because those kids are the ones who will be paying into Medicare, Social Security, pension systems and state and local income and sales taxes, so the more money they make as adults, the better off we all do, especially retirees. To put this up as an illegal immigration issue is short-sighted and has nothing to do with the vast majority of kids who need this financial support. It’s time we stop letting bias, and what’s best for adults in the short term, dictate what we do for our children in the long term. We’ve been nickle and diming our kids since Prop 13 passed and the legislature started tinkering with Prop 98 funding, and we’ve got the results to show for it. WE are setting California on a social and economic course to ruin, instead of rebuilding our economy for the future and providing kids the education funding they need to realize that future.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I don’t get the use of “deregulates” by Brownley/Lowenthal in “the Governor’s proposal essentially deregulates public school funding…” That’s usually used for the private sector. School districts are part of the public sector with their own elected boards. Also we already have Federal and State accountability systems that disaggregate the weighted groups. Why would we need a new accountability system for this?
The amount we should spend on general education, extra help for the poor, and extra help for kids who don’t speak English is the amount we as a public want to spend on these things. So, why not just start out the system with a base and weights proportional to how much we spend on these right now and then argue about any adjustments to the formula afterwards?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Restricted revenue is currently ‘regulated’ in the sense that it cannot be spent on something other than for which it was intended. Removing that restriction (making the revenue unrestricted) is akin to ‘deregulating’ it.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Nickel and diming? Are you joking? Education spending consistently comprises about 40% of the state general fund. Moreover education spending increased steadily along with increasing state revenue following the passage of Prop. 13. Property tax revenue has increased by more than triple the combined rate of inflation and population growth — 579 percent versus 191 percent. Moreover there is absolutely no evidence that educational outcomes improve with increased spending, especially not in a broken, union driven system. As for ELL students, if you venture into a school in one of these districts that stand to benefit financially from the weighted formula you would see campuses populated by students and employees who speak Spanish in the classrooms, on the playground,and in the office. To not attribute this to (illegal) immigration is to delude yourself of the fact that we have been importing poverty at an alarming rate, pre and post amnesties, against the clear will of the California electorate. That has not been a wise strategy for growing a well educated population to fill those science, technology and engineering fields of which you speak and there is no educational model and not enough money anywhere to change that. In fact it is precisely what has set a course to social and economic ruin. Moreover, using language status as a reason to increase education funding is in direct contradiction with the government, corporations, media and entertainment industries going out of their way to make learning English a discretionary preference.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
ann, do you realize that california has just become majority california-born for the first time since the gold rush? thats over 150 years of ‘outsiders’ living here. 150 years.
Per capita tax burden as a percentage of income in adjusted dollars is lower than it was before prop 13. Note also that william said ‘and prop 98 tinkering’. The point is that our state has been trying to take money away from public education for decades and every time a new way to fund it is created, someone comes in and figures out a way to take it away. Schools get property taxes? Reduce property taxes. Schools guaranteed a percentage of general fund revenue? Pass laws that raise revenue outside of the general fund or simply defer those guarantees. That’s what is meant by nickel and diming.
Let me know what percentage of state expenditures you think should go to educating between 20% and 25% of the entire population on a daily basis. And what kind of priority should educating our kids be for us as a society?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The huge issue with this proposal is that 418,500 high school and 136,500 adult students will not receive career technical training through the Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROCPs), statewide. The proposal will eliminate ROCPs within 3-4 years. The majority of career technical education courses offered are funded through ROCPs). This proposal will also eliminate all adult education programs that also train students for the workforce. Why would the governor want to eliminate career technical education statewide?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
As someone that left the private sector because of mass consolidation for the job security of education, I am NOW looking to get back to the private sector after 9 years. Sad but true! The reason? This! It is a fluster cluck on what is going on with funding of education. It’s education, folks. With education, you get less violent crime and productive people of society. By productive people, I mean, tax paying, consumer product buying, home buying, car buying, etc….When you get that, you get a better economy.
As a k-12 educator in a high poverty area, my students struggle with poverty each day and being kids of immigrants, they understand that mom and dad need education and training to make the family better. Contrary to the right wing belief, those immigrants rarely use public services. Why? There is an inherant fear of being found out and being deported. But, while they are here, they are continuing to buy goods and services and pay taxes on those good and services.
So, weighted student formula while cutting the core of Family Literacy is crazy. Kids need career technical education (ROP). It is proven that, when kids are enrolled in ROP programs they are more likely to continue to come to school. Why? because they see the relevance of school and “the real world”.
It is also true that if you make education available for all, e.g. family literacy, then you get better results. Folks, until 2009, the adult education program in Los Angeles was 100% self sustained. It is only the fluster cluck of K-12 that have been unable to manage a budget and figure it out as to what is hurting k-12. So, the thought process is, if k-12 cant manage a budget on their own, take from a self sustained education, e.g. adult education, which overall damages the family literacy concept.
I wish this would not even be on the table, it is things like this as to what is wrong with education. Special interests and prop 13 have screwed up once a world class educational system from when I was in San Diego schools. It is now looked up as a total and complete mess. Good Job, Jarvis Foundation!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Why is it more expensive to educate poor students and students who don’t speak english? Are bi-lingual teachers paid much more? Is housing more expensive in poor neighborhoods? Why do we assume that more money is the answer to the school’s problems?
A better solution is wholesale reform: create whole new systems (by neighborhood) that let educators experiment and innovate. Let them clear away the dead wood in the system that we all know is there, but works against the interests of parents and students. But we also all know that can’t happen so long as the “entrenched interests” are in charge of the schools.
To William, who claims this has nothing to do with illegal immigration I have this: pretend your a poor mexican national considering moving to California to (justifyingly so) escape poverty. You learn that the California taxpayer is willing to pay $10 – 20,000 per year to educate your child (which is a multiple of your annual income). You also learn that California taxpayers have committed to pay more to educate your children than they are to educate their own children. Would you conclude that those in the north had lost their minds?
I have sympathy for those in the south; those I know are are hardworking and upright people. But it’s just downright silly to think they don’t respond to economic incentives like this.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Most of the illegals I know do not have their children here. And we dont actually spend $10k-$20k per illegal alien child. In reality, only between $3k and $5k per child make it to the schools. the higher average per pupil spending is more a function of special ed than foreign language speakers.
And btw, the reason it costs more is we offer them lower student to teacher ratios (even sometimes individual intervention). This applies not only to english learners though.
The reason more money is the answer is that less money has been the policy for a number of years now. Many schools no longer have libraries. Some schools dont have computers. Some have computers, but no computer teachers. Many no longer have art. We’ve laid off vice principals and counselors. In one of our middle schools, we have one counselor for 800 kids. One. A decade ago it was one for each grade, plus extra vice principals and psychologists and and..
Money is always the answer as long as anything valuable costs money..
And trust me, no entrenched interest can work against the interests of parents and students… as long as those parents are engaged…
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity