First, keep the lights on

Districts used flexibility to stay solvent
By

Given more control over how they could spend state money, school districts not surprisingly chose survival over experimentation. And if legislators want otherwise – to encourage districts to innovate or target money on low-achieving students – then they should be more explicit about their intentions.

That was the main finding and chief recommendation of a study of districts’ flexible spending last year by the RAND Corporation and researchers with the University of California. The results are consistent with annual surveys by the Legislative Analyst’s Office the past two years.

The study – also a survey, of chief financial officers in 223 districts – diagnosed  how districts spent their share of $4.5 billion in previously earmarked spending. That encompassed 40 of 60 categorical programs and slightly less than a quarter of the $19 billion in total restricted spending that the Legislature made flexible in 2009.

Longtime advocates of unloosing control from Sacramento had speculated that districts might use deregulated  spending to “make focused investments in new instructional approaches to meet local needs” or push decision-making to the school site level. They wondered whether vocal, well-organized groups – educated parents or unions – would dominate control over spending, aggravating disparities in student spending.

But none of this happened to a great extent. (There is an interesting experiment on school-based budgeting in Los Angeles Unified and Twin Rivers Unified, which contributors to TOP-Ed have written about here and here.) Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cut categorical programs 20 percent in 2009 when instituting flexibility, and total K-12 spending has been cut 18 percent since 2007-08. As a result, districts “swept” restricted dollars into their general funds in order to keep solvent and prevent additional layoffs, the study found. Money that had been earmarked for teacher and staff training and for general school improvement was largely diverted. Adult education was cut severely in many districts that had the programs.

“Hopes of some advocates that local control would spur widespread innovation or a new focus on classroom improvements simply proved unrealistic,” the study’s co-author, Bruce Fuller, a co-director of the Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), said in a news release.

However, the study also found that “about one-third (of districts) reported that aligning spending with ‘school improvement goals’ was a high priority, and a few reported allocating newly flexible dollars to instructional reforms.” The latter were mainly urban school districts.

Lost accountability

The study has implications moving forward. Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed shifting most categorical dollars, including the money already flexed, into a weighted student funding formula that would shift significant spending to low-income students and English learners. Brown’s proposal has run into opposition based on the distribution formula. But advocates for poor children also have called on Brown to include assurances that the extra dollars would be spent on them and that local parent and English learner school committees be given a role in overseeing the dollars. The groups, which included the Education Trust-West and Public Advocates, stated their position in a June 14 letter to Brown.

Another approach could be a block grant, in which districts have latitude to spend as they choose within parameters, such as designating money broadly for professional development. Assemblymember Julia Brownley, who chairs the Assembly Education Committee, took that approach in AB 18, a variation of a weighted student formula.

RAND and the LAO had to rely on district surveys, because the state didn’t force districts to report how they spent formerly restricted dollars. The RAND-UC report recommends that the state Department of Education require this and that legislators require that flexibility be evaluated to determine which students and which programs benefited and which did not. Among the questions worth asking:

  • “What happens to programs whose funds are most often swept up, such as art and music?”
  • “How do changes in adult education funding affect communities and other institutions providing such services?”

4 Comments

  1. Art and music no longer exist unless the parents pay for the programs … and even then most of the parent raised funds are “swept” into buckets preferred by the administrator and teachers. Well, that’s my experience! Just reading the headlines of school districts from the past few years answers that question for many districts in California.
    I would like some clarification as to the role of School Board Trustees when approving – without input from parents or feedback via circulated budget documents – the “flexing” of categorical funds into the General Fund. I am increasingly finding that trustees are serving mainly the adults when faced with potentially difficult decisions about funds.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

    • Sue: The report confirmed your suspicion: Art and music were among the programs that have been cut.

      Regarding parental feedback, it noted on page 31 the following (Tier 3 refers to the flexed categorical programs: … “the survey also asked CFOs to report the portion of Tier 3 programs for which principals or school site councils were given greater discretion than in the past. Just 9 percent of CFOs reported sharing additional discretion over “all” Tier 3 programs; 7 percent reported sharing authority over “most” programs, and 22 percent gave increased discretion to principals or school site councils over “some” Tier 3 program dollars. The remaining 60 percent of CFOs reported that none of the Tier 3 discretion was passed down to principals or school site councils.”

      Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  2. In our district, we’ve been able to offer music via an after school program. We’ve also been able to keep art by sharing resources with the high school.
     
    No one has advocated against flexing the money into the general fund in our district. Although it is free of its restrictions, in this district the money is being kept in its original accounts so there’s trackability. I can’t see that voting against the flex would serve the needs of students over adults. Flex doesn’t prohibit the gifted money from being used for gifted programs. The trustees and administration in my district are trying to keep those funds serving kids and addressing the spirit of the intention of them, if not using them to the letter of categorical rules. It may be easier to do so in a small district.
     
    The one creative change that was made was the ability to use Community Day School money for early intervention without having to take those kids from their home classroom. This was very successful… but now that money has been moved back to general fund use, given the heavy needs in the general fund. I think it’s unrealistic to think the money won’t be used for keeping the lights on when the light-keeping-on money has been cut so severely. And your music and gifted programs, as important as they are, are probably less important than having classroom teachers.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Trackbacks

  1. The Educated Guess: First, keep the lights on : SCOE News Reader

"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