Now that California finally has a budget, school districts are faced with brutal cuts to base funding, affecting school year 2009-2010 and long after.
Optimists note that for the next few years, the school population will decrease which suggests the remaining money can be spread further. On the other hand, the recession means that the state receives fewer tax dollars, and those dollars, plus a few lottery dollars, are the entire school funding source from the state, not including categorical monies.
In spite of this awful news, back in April 2008 an Issue Brief “Getting Beyond the Facts” (see K-12 Research of The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity) proposed a school finance reform “more rational, more equitable, and …politically feasible.”
Authors Alan Bersin, Michael Kirst, and Goodwin Liu feel that California’s “budget woes” provide “a window of opportunity to create a new framework for school finance.”
The proposal suggests four principles for reform.
First, revenue allocations should account for student needs (see post 7/31). While school governance, accountability, teacher training, consistency in delivering curriculum are important, “a rational funding mechanism provides an essential backdrop” to close the large achievement gap. For the latest student scores, see “Gaps in Test Scores Remain Wide,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 19, 2009.
Second, revenue allocations should take into account the tremendous diversity in cost of living and labor market conditions from region to region in the state. Funding must ensure the ability to attract highly-qualified teachers and purchase the materials and resources for successful schools.
Third, the finance system must be transparent and easily understood to ensure support from the entire school community. As shared in the post 5/16, public surveys show willingness to support schools, but unwillingness to increase funding (taxes, bonds) when the public doesn’t see how the money will be used.
Finally, financial reform must apply to new monies, not take away a district’s current allocation. The term for this condition is called “hold harmless.” The delays in budget plans, instability of education revenue, and overall inadequacy of school funding make school district officials wary of any change and must be considered when introducing financial reform.
In summary, the proposal suggests three money components: base funding (the amount per pupil for textbooks, safe facilities, and teacher salaries); special education funds for students with special needs; and targeted funding, such as Title 1 monies for low-income students and state monies for English Learners. Models, based on the principles outlined above, describe the varied revenue possibilities for school districts.
Not only does the Issue Brief by The Warren Institute offer a school finance proposal, two other group proposals are available-Getting Down to Facts Project and the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence (Priority 2: Ensure Fair Funding).
As of July 23, 2009, the California legislature has made its 4th amendment to Assembly Bill 8 (Julia Brownley), a proposal to convene a working group to make findings and recommendations by December 1, 2010, to restructure school finance, based on similar principles as in the Issue Brief outlined above.
Here’s the question.
Why is this legislation allowing another year and a half to go by, only to come up with a 4th proposal, not a bill, when the current school financial crisis is dire and students from the most high-achieving to the most low-income are not being served?
Tags: Alan Bersin, base funding, CA Assembly Bill 8, Ethnicity & Diversity, Goodwin Liu, Julia Brownley, Michael Kirst, targeted funding, The Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race