Figuring districts’ weighted funding

Yardstick is 47% increase by 2018-19
By

The state Department of Finance has released the district allocations under Gov. Jerry Brown’s revised plan for weighted student funding that shaves off the peaks, fills in the valleys, and includes other changes that make allotments flatter, arguably fairer, and potentially more politically palatable to those who criticized aspects of the formula.

The 77-page spreadsheet of district and charter school allocations doesn’t reveal – and inquiring minds will want to know – how districts compare with one another and with a statewide average once the formula is fully funded in 2018-19. But the raw numbers are there to calculate percentage increases and per-student spending, and Nick Schweizer, the program budget manager for education in the Department of Finance, did provide me with a district average increase, along with some cautions.

That figure is 47 percent, which is to say that between the base year of 2012-13 and full funding seven years later, the Department of Finance is projecting the average district’s growth under the formula, which covers most but not all education spending, will be 47 percent. This assumes that the tax increase proposed for November passes; the weighted student formula will be put off if it doesn’t. So, if your district revenues increase more than 47 percent, because you have large numbers of disadvantaged students, it’s more than likely a “winner” under the formula; if under 47 percent, it’s more than likely a “loser.” (Update: The Public Policy Institute of California on Tuesday released an analysis of the revised formula, with district figures. Go here.)

The impact of the proposed weighted student funding formula on the state's 10 largest districts. To determine a district's increases in per student funding from 2012-13 to full funding in 2018-19, divide columns 5 and 7 by student enrollment in column 4. Source: state Department of Finance. (click to enlarge)

The impact of the proposed weighted student funding formula on the state's 10 largest districts. To determine a district's increases in per-student funding from 2012-13 to full funding in 2018-19, divide columns 5 and 7 by student enrollment in column 4. Source: State Department of Finance. (Click to enlarge)

The chart at left, which shows the 10 largest districts, illustrates the impact. Santa Ana Unified, with 84 percent poor children and 56 percent English learners, will see district funding rise 71 percent (last column divided by fifth column) by 2018-19, and per-student funding rise from $6,460 to $11,040. Capistrano Unified, with 10 percent English learners and 21 percent low-income students, will see district funding rise 38 percent and per-student funding increase from $6,052 to $8,388.

There are caveats to consider when comparing a district with the 47 percent statewide average:

& As Schweizer points out, this assumes that, absent the formula, nothing will have changed in the allocation of categorical or restricted money and general or revenue limit spending in seven years. That would be unlikely, given that the trend has been to cut or eliminate some categorical programs and increase the revenue limit;

& Some districts might get less than 47 percent and still do better than they would have otherwise, if they are currently getting little categorical money. Each district’s individual circumstances vary somewhat;

& A district’s base in 2012-13 matters. Some districts, like Los Angeles Unified, will see per-student spending increase less than 47 percent. But they will start with a high base in 2012-13 and will end up doing well in 2018-19 (more on why later).

As for the 47 percent spending increase over seven years: Finance released a graph showing per-student funding, but only through 2015-16 (see chart), as far into the future as it makes detailed projections. Schweizer said that for the remaining three years, Finance conservatively projected 5 percent annual revenue increases. It also assumed flat district enrollments for the calculations. The four-year, ¼ percent sales tax increase that is built into the calculations ends in 2015-16, complicating the picture.

Significant changes from January’s formula

Under a weighted student formula, districts will receive a base funding per student plus a supplement based on the number of  low-income students and English learners. Brown proposed to fund the supplement, or weighted portion, from a pot of what has been categorical programs. Districts with few disadvantaged students will lose most if not all of that money, amounting to hundreds of dollars  per child.

Responding to criticisms of his initial proposal in January, the governor:

& Raised the base and added grade differentials, recognizing that high school districts have been getting higher funding and elementary schools have received subsidies for smaller classes. The base will be $5,466 per student for K-3, $4,934 for 4-6, $5,081 for 7-8, and $5,887 for 9-12. The K-3 funding will have the previous class-size reduction categorical money folded in, though districts will be free to use the dollars however they choose.

& Reduced the weighted amount for disadvantaged students from an extra 37 percent per child to 20 percent;

& Cut the bonus amount to districts with high concentrations of disadvantaged students from a maximum of 37 percent to a maximum of 20 percent for districts with 100 percent disadvantaged students. The concentration factor is phased in for districts with more than 50 percent disadvantaged populations. The administration has not offered the research behind the concentration factor. Putting that aside, allocating it on a districtwide basis overlooks the fact that individual schools in districts with low overall rates of disadvantaged students may have heavy concentrations of poor students and English learners.

An example is Mount Diablo Unified in Contra Costa County, with an overall average of 21 percent English learners and 36 percent low income. Mount Diablo High School has 71 percent low-income children and 43 percent English learners, while Ygnacio Valley Elementary has 79 percent low-income and 62 percent English learners. Their students will gain nothing because of the district’s average.)

& Phased in the program over seven years instead of six years, starting next year with 5 percent weighted student funding/95 percent current system.

& Paid off what districts are owed from recent years’ cuts and denied cost-of-living raises on the revenue limit portion, which is student funding minus categorical programs. This debt is called the deficit factor and now totals 22 percent of the revenue limit amount – a huge IOU.

Conditioning the full implementation of the weighted student funding on repayment of revenue limit dollars removes a major criticism of the plan. But that will not satisfy those districts with relatively few disadvantaged students, which will permanently see their categorical dollars shifted to more needy districts.

An example is Acalanes Union High School District in Contra Costa County, with a total of 5 percent English learners and low-income students. Under the January proposal, the district would actually have lost money under full funding. Under the latest plan, per-pupil spending will rise 23 percent, or about half of the state average, by 2018-19, because of  the loss of about $609 per student in categorical funds, a little less than 10 percent of total funding. Associate Superintendent Chris Learned says that he’s sympathetic to the need for weighted student funding, but that districts’ funding should be fully restored to the 2007-08 pre-recession level before phasing in the new system.

& Pulled two big categorical programs totaling nearly $2 billion (Correction: $1.3 billion) out of the weighted student distribution formula. These are the Home to School Transportation program and the Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG), which is mainly money districts received to settle desegregation suits.Neither TIIG nor bus money has been equitably or rationally distributed among districts. But districts like Los Angeles Unified (where TIIG amounts to about $500 per student) and San Jose Unified (nearly $1,000 per student) would be crippled without the money. Brown is proposing to let districts keep what they’ve gotten for TIIG and transportation but no more. Over time, the impact of the money would diminish by not receiving yearly cost-of-living adjustments.

Under the revised formula, Los Angeles Unified’s per-student funding would increase 44 percent by 2018-19, slightly less than the state average, while San Bernardino’s funding would increase 58.5 percent (see chart), significantly above average. But because of TIIG, Los Angeles would start with a bigger base and end up in 2018-19 with $10,967 per student, about the same as San Bernardino’s $11,027.

18 Comments

  1. Hi John:  I can’t obtain access to the chart because I am not an SVEF member. Any chance I can gain access through another site?

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  2. I have placed a number of documents related to 2012/13 budget on my website including both versions of the weighted student formula. Here is the link to revised WSF:  http://mikemcmahon.info/WSFDistrictbyDistrictMay2012.pdf
    Here is a link to all of the documents. http://www.mikemcmahon.info/legislate12.htm
     
     

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  3. My apology, Sue.  It’s now a public document. I had hit the wrong setting.

    Thanks for the alternative, Mike. The document was too big for me to upload it as a PDF on my blog.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  4. Thanks for the update and for making the document available. Without TOP-Ed, I wouldn’t have known this was out today.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  5. John,
    What is the prevailing wisdom on the fate of county office funding under the new version? The chart leaves out all COEs.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  6. John   good work on this.  One very very big caution.  The data sets used for these comparisons are  subject to great change and in many cases, especially charter schools, just not accurate.  Data used for the poverty index are complex subject to manipulation and un audited.    As we school finance junkies are oft to say  when looking at such data it appears they ” measure with a micrometer, mark it with chalk and cut it with and axe. ” John

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  7. Our county has several districts getting Necessary Small Schools funding and so are not included. (Odd that much smaller charter schools are included given that.) The fate of the county office funding is also of great interest to me.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  8. I can’t find our single district charter school either.
    Looks like there are still ‘interesting’ differences in funding. In all honesty I don’t trust the SES measurement at all. Undeclared income, and myriad ways of fudging child support, etc., all conspire to have an impact on the number of children who meet the free lunch standard. Also,  I wonder how many more adjustments to this formula will take place between now and November’s election?
    Fundamentally, I cannot grasp how the ‘avergage’ school, especially a school district not already supported by a Bond measure for maintenance, can move forwards to implement the much touted STEM programs. Science and technology classes are expensive, as are practical arts shops, and the infrastructure required to update equipment and move students into the CAD related careers. I see a profound disconnect between the national and state policy pronouncements as to how many qualified scientists, engineers, etc., we will need in the next decade and this 77 page spreadsheet! In comparison other countries are increasingly diversifying their school systems and trying to meet the need for an educated, employable citizenry through academies, private/public partnerships, increased apprentice type opportunities, etc. Meanwhile, in California (of all places) we are going to plod along backwards with an increasingly topdown  - union and political  - system. My friend’s 16 year old daughter in England is thriving in a state school (which also asks for support from parents who can afford it) where she studies  foreign languages, three sciences, math, drama, music (and I don’t mean marching band), and social sciences. Her 13 year old sister studies Japanese and German in a high immigrant, low income, state funded comprehensive school. California is stagnant, and retreating into a minimalist education policy. Starving high achieving, math and science focused schools in order to divert funds to lower income schools that already have been receiving additional Title 1 and Title 2 money for years, is not going to help anybody. Charter schools (and my kids are in one) are not adequately improving student achievement and learning outcomes either. This formula does not have any incentives to improve student performance, and will probably lead to an increase in high achieving schools seeking to move into charter status in order to gain flexibility in program offerings and attract industry partnerships. There is absolutely no educational vision in this state.
    There needs to be a discussion between how to effectively fund STEM initiatives and organize public schools more efficiently and effectively.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  9. Peggy: I’ll have to get back to you, unless some of our other astute readers can provide an answer sooner.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  10. John Mockler is certainly right about the free lunch data and the English learner data. There are shortcomings in both of these data sets right now as the state transitions these data sets to the CalPADS data collection system.
    If people are looking to get a better understanding of the impact of the WSF proposal, they may want to take a look at a recently released analysis by PPIC and the district level data that they used to estimate the long term impact of the WSF proposal. (Charter schools and county offices are out of luck – not included in the district runs.) The nice part of their runs is that there is enough detail to figure out a bit about how the results are determined.
    http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=1022
     

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  11. Two questions:
    If the revised proposal from Gov. Brown  also provides flexibility over all categorical money then what assurances have we that the so-called weighted funds will be spent on the students for whom the money is intended? What, then, are the implications for School Site Councils? Anyone?

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  12. Trams, the basic goal of what brown is doing seems to be to push decision making regarding funding decisions to the local level. This has the advantage of feeling like ‘freedom’ while also deflecting complaints about top-down, state-level mandates from the state to the local boards. The assumption is then that the community will be the ones who need to make sure funds will get where they belong. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. In reality, in most districts this will probably not happen without an associated increase in some level of funding transparency. Something that in the context of reducing budgets is probably less than likely. So in answer to your first question I’d say the community really must step up.
     
    As far as SSC goes, the primary impact for them will be the loss EIA funds (last I checked this would die with browns proposal–someone correct me if that’s changed). Since browns proposal doesn’t impact federal money the SSC would still have control over that.  It will be interesting to see whether any districts want to push say over that state funding to SSCs. My guess is not because it will likely be used for more district-level policies (CSR, CRT LDRT staffing levels, etc).
     
    Also, if munger’s plan passes, there will be a similar dynamic, albeit not regarding how to distribute the money (that is dictated by the initiative) but how to spend it. In that case schools are required to provide input to the board, which then makes the final decision. Although it is not specified in the initiative, and schools could decide to do it a different way,  I expect the SSC will be a big part of that decision making / feedback process.
     
    My $0.02

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  13. Apologies ahead of time..   :-)
     
    So there is continued concern about whether schools or students for which funding is ‘intended’ actually get the money. But brown ‘adjusted’ the weighting from 37% to 20%. How does that not make the excess arbitrary?  Don’t we need to have an understanding of what kind of excess is appropriate before we can decide how to measure whether they are getting it?
     
    And one interesting, if not controversial note: virtually all of our funding is ADA based. This implies that the students who should be getting it are only the ones who show up at school (eg based on, say, truancy rates or similar). But in reality that would appear to contradict focusing more on kids in need. At the district level, ADA-based funding clearly does move money away from poverty schools, but at the school level I would expect that not to be the case (at least not for that stated reason). I am interested in how people view that discontinuity. And no, I’m not being facetious. :-)

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Trackbacks

  1. The Educated Guess: Figuring out your district’s weighted funding : SCOE News Reader
  2. Engaging Parents In School… » The Nuances Of Parent Fundraising For Schools

"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.

10.1Assessments(37)
2010 elections(16)
2012 election(16)
A to G Curriculum(27)
Achievement Gap(38)
Adequacy suit(19)
Adult education(1)
Advocacy organizations(20)
Blog info(5)
CALPADS(32)
Career academies(20)
CELDT(2)
Character education(2)
Charters(82)
Common Core standards(71)
Community Colleges(66)
Data(25)
Did You Know(16)
Disabilities education(3)
Dropout prevention(11)
© Thoughts on Public Education 2014 | Home | Terms of Use | Site Map | Contact Us