Archive for the ‘California budget crisis’ Category

« Older Entries

School Budgets in 2010-Squeezing California Oranges

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

You might as well know what’s being done by California state and local education entities to find a drop at the bottom of the juice glass to keep schools open, much less buy art supplies or basket balls for a successful school.

Proposition 13 became California law in 1978 and, slowly but surely, funds for schools, school districts, county districts, community college districts, as well as the State Department of Education and teacher credentialing services have dried up.  The current sum makes one think of California raisins rather than golden oranges.  This reduction in funds doesn’t count the services for local municipalities that disappear as this post is written.

As the recession has gripped California, the last bit of money has been sucked from the orange rind.  Besides trying to revise sections of the Proposition 13 statute (see last week’s post 8-4-10), here are the changes the state has turned to in order to balance the state budget and also provide the least possible amount-the floor compelled by CA Proposition 98-to support public education.

First, the amounts that the state had contributed out of its revenue to equalize funding for each local education agency (LEA) has been reduced.  California schools provide education dollars at 30% per student below the national average.  The student/teacher ratio is 37% below the national average.  In fact, schools in California have 30% fewer teachers for 6+ million students.

Second, in order to stretch dollars the state has negotiated to make federal Title I monies and state monies assigned to programs like Quality Educational Investment Act (QEIA) more flexible.  Originally QEIA was designated by CA SB 1133 in 2006 to provide $3 billion over 7 years to support schools serving low-income families, special needs students, and English Language Learners.  Not any more.

Third, the state has scaled back the amount of yearly formal testing.  For example, some special needs students are not tested.

Fourth, the state has authorized school districts to shore up their budgets by digging into a higher percentage of its reserves.  In addition, furlough days have been negotiated with the teacher’s unions which decrease salaries, but also avoid lay-offs.

Fifth, the state has revised its rules for curriculum adoption.  Formerly, every seven years new textbooks were designated for schools.  In 2008 this provision of the education code was halted.  No new science or social studies books were chosen.  Even with the changes identified by the Common Core Standards adoption, textbook purchases will be on hold for an indefinite time.

Next, the deferred maintenance budgets for school district buildings have been revised and the monies can be redirected to support other needs.  In addition, surplus property rules for a district have been changed to bring in money.

Last on this list, a suggestion has been offered to have multiple districts create an education finance district in order to increase the chance of passing a parcel tax.  The complications are numerous, but be prepared to read about it in the newspapers if California’s budget problems aren’t resolved soon.

In 2008-2009, the state revised three times before a balanced budget, ripe for spoilage, was signed.  This past year 2009-2010 the budget was fought over until September.  By now funding deferrals that force borrowing by education entities leave a higher number of districts at risk of insolvency–oranges dropping to the ground.  What then?

A detailed report on the crisis in California school finance can be read in Edsource’s January 2010 report Budget Cataclysm and its Aftermath.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, Edsource, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

School Finance Debacle–Proposition 13, 30 Years Later

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Like wrangling over Common Core Standards (CCS) in California, legislators and school district personnel can’t bring themselves to “do something” about the 1978 Proposition 13.

For the CCS, California can accommodate Algebra I in the 8th grade and few of the English/Language Arts standards need reworking.  As of Monday, August 2, 2010, the California Board of Education finally adopted the standards.  Now to implement procedures and allow time to make sure school district personnel, not only teachers but principals and administrators, have the resources to use the standards to improve academic achievement.

Which brings us to the old Proposition 13 that has done its worst to bring down our schools.  Not only is every local municipality stretching its few property tax dollars to cover services, so also are schools.

Things are so unstable that legislators are finally looking at revisions of some aspects of the legislation passed by voters in 1978.  Never fear, your grandmother’s property will not be touched.  She will still only feel an increase of 2% on the tax she currently pays based on the 1% assessment of her property’s value 35 years ago (in 1975) as the law states.

Legislation to fund school budgets in California is “complex, irrational, and inequitable” according to the Getting Down to Facts Project report.    Still, looking at the news in 1978, 38% of the voters believed the state could absorb the 40% estimated reduction in tax revenue.  Voters were sick of high tax liabilities without an increase in their ability to pay, just like today when wages were stagnating well before the great recession.

Simply put, the answer over time has been to assess fees for every municipal service, set bond and local utility or parcel tax proposals, and authorize a plethora of special assessment districts such as flood control and drainage.  These tithes supplement the minimum funding for schools and provide funds for local municipal services.

But in 2010 with a $19 billion deficit in the state budget and nothing agreed to by the legislature and governor as of this post, here are two possibilities to increase funds for municipalities and schools.

In December 2008 Senator Joe Simitian offered SCA 6 (amended several times) to change the 2/3 provision of Proposition 13 and make 55% needed to pass special tax legislation.  Such a change would improve the chances that local parcel tax measures written for specified school purposes would pass.

This change is difficult.  Recently Californians for Improved School Funding tried to collect enough signatures to put an initiative similar to Simitian’s bill on the November 2010 ballot and failed.

Assembly member Tom Ammiano has offered AB2492.  It revises how property tax is calculated on commercial properties which by 2009 benefited far more than any voter understood in 1978.  Though never talked about during the campaign, the Jarvis-Gann proposition was devised to serve commercial properties far more than homeowners.  For example, in Los Angeles County, 1979 commercial property taxes were 47% of the total, while in 2009 taxes from commercial properties were 30%.

The assembly bill changes how ownership of a commercial entity is defined.  It refines the circumstances under which a sale occurs and reassessment must be made.  Revising this section of Proposition 13, while complex, would close an estimated $7.5 billion corporate tax loophole for the benefit of local municipalities as well as local schools.

Another way to reform the commercial property loopholes is called “split roll” by which residential homeowners’ tax assessment remains as is, but commercial properties are assessed at 1 ½% and reassessed more often.  Provisions in the reform offer +65 owners breaks and low-income family breaks, applicable to landlords of rental housing.  Lenny Goldberg hopes to bring a ballot initiative up for the 2012 elections.

Either of these proposals will bring more budget control to local districts and still protect individual taxpayers.  Most important, revenue sources will be made evenhanded and help the state overcome its budget debacle.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

School Mandates Reform, a Golden Apple Worth Pursuing

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Summer vacation is half-over and students are still learning.  Sports camp, computer camp, theatre arts camp, science and math camp for girls, and newest of all, half-blood day camps for boys, who learn the Greek mythology stories while pursuing gorgons and Medusa in search of the Golden Apple.  Glory for all.  See New York Times, July 16, 2010, “What I Did at Camp: Followed Plot, Killed Gorgon, Saved World.”

If only the California Superintendent of Schools could climb Mt. Shasta-the local Mt. Olympus– to ask an oracle to speak with Athena, Goddess of Wisdom, dispose of nay-sayers with a swat of the sword, and snatch the Golden Fleece in order to save teachers from lay-offs when school begins-for some as soon as the second week in August.  The closest any state will come to finding the Golden Fleece is to win Race to the Top funds in the second round of federal grant disbursement.

If you were the Oracle what would you suggest to states in order to bring short term support for schools?  Remember, California alone has 6 million students with 174 districts financially distressed (San Jose Mercury News, July 5, 2010).  It is 44th lowest in dollars spent per student, and somewhere between 45-50th ranking in number of students per teacher-depending on how the ratio is determined.  No one option will be a magic cure.  Soon, all sources of funds for the state must be equitably reallocated.

Here are some options collected from various blogs, news articles, and reports.  The list emphasizes saving money.  Which options also do no harm to students and curriculum?  Suggestions were found in articles collected by Edsource.

Large school districts shorten the school year calendar, increase class sizes and lay off teachers.  The money saved supports the program left.  This is already happening.

Halt any facilities improvements to public schools, e.g. solar panels which initially cost a bunch although they save money over time.

Pass more parcel taxes to make up for lack of property taxes.  In the Los Altos area, one parcel tax to continue benefits to the high school district was passed in June and 2 more are proposed for the November ballot, one for the elementary district and one for the community college district.  The thought is that homeowners are more likely to support taxes for schools close by rather than taxes frittered, supposedly, by the state.  If only legislation would pass designating a 55% majority instead of a 2/3 vote.

How about the governor’s fix?  End the elected position of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and his/her department.  Only keep the governor-appointed position of Secretary of Education.

Drop sports from the budgets of the University of California and State University.  Lots of money saved to support liberal arts and engineering.

Finally, in February 2010 the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) distributed a proposal to reform unfunded school district mandates which eventually must be paid by the state.

Some mandates serve a purpose and are fundamental to the education of students, such as protection of student health and provision of essential assessment and oversight data.

Otherwise, the abundance of mandates legislated over the years should be eliminated; the reimbursement process simplified; or a different far-less-costly process designed to achieve the objective.  An example of a mandate to be eliminated is the requirement to submit physical education data which is already collected during financial audits.

It is estimated that this one reform measure could save the state $350 million or more a year and instead be used to address school needs that have statewide interest, produce results, and are worth the cost.

Here lies one substantial piece to reform school finance.  It may not be the Golden Fleece but surely a  Golden Apple is waiting to be picked up.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, Edsource, Race to Top, public schools, school finance reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

When At First You Don’t Succeed

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

The first winners in the Race to the Top competition were two small states: Delaware and Tennessee.  Good for them.

Being small compared to say California, they managed to get all school districts and teacher’s unions on board.  Not only that, it seems the two states wrote decent, clear proposals.

Too bad the other states didn’t take their lumps without fussing and excusing themselves, without criticizing the judges and scores on the proposals as if they were unfairly disqualified.

This is like any competition: the grant writers, state departments of education, and state legislatures knew the rules of the game.  Some states refused to take the cap off the number of charter schools.  Some states couldn’t persuade all school districts to collaborate.  Some states couldn’t manage to change their education laws to allow reform of teacher evaluation combined with state testing.

For some states-like California-the depths of fiscal collapse is the real reason that the state didn’t win a prize.  Like many contestants, the state needed the money to compensate for its own deficit and now complains because of a cap on the next set of awards.  California, for instance, asked for $1 billion in the first round and has found out it can only max out at $700 million if it wins in the second round of application.

Now, now, swallow your pride and dig in.  That’s what students are told to do.

For one, rewrite the grant to allow small rural schools and big urban districts to reform the issues that affect each individually.  If the school is persistently low-performing (whether large or small), there are at least two ways to restructure, not counting change to a charter, the least best of the ways to reorganize for most schools.  An adept grant writer could show how a school might combine parts of all the possible models; the point is to design a reform model and stick to it along with improvements as needed over time.

The most difficult issue to resolve and the one that held up many proposals is linking teacher evaluation and state testing.  There are those who can’t imagine how to design a teacher evaluation that is fair and accounts for the variables that lead to discrepant test results.  How can the two be combined?

Above all content standards must be agreed upon and assessments must be improved.  Common content standards are being revised right now.  A multiple choice test doesn’t assess all the learning skills a student needs.  Not all teachers are working in a grade or subject that the current state test assesses.

Next, systems must be set up to provide a community of accountability in a public school.  For example, yearly a principal with a formal evaluation rates plans to reach the many groups of student abilities in the class and analyzes assessments for improved student growth. Also observers come into the classroom frequently, using a checklist of items that teachers collaborate on to design a successful classroom.  Those are the techniques to observe.  Feedback is provided immediately, either from the check list or by conference and an ‘action plan’ is developed to help the teacher with any strategies that might improve class work.

Of course, this kind of reform needs financial resources to include administrators to take on school operations and observers who agree to help with this type of accountability, leaving the principal to attend to the learning in the school.  Please note that the district’s school board must focus on academic achievement for each school, high as well as low-achieving.

It will not do to leave the teachers to take on all of the above and then be handled roughly if achievement doesn’t immediately improve.  This blog has long maintained the relentless, consistent nature of reform for an entire school community.

So the moral for state is “try, try again.”

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, Race to Top, low-performing schools, public schools, school accountability, school community, school reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Act on Acting Out

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Do you know the jingle?  “When she is good, she’s very, very good, but when she is bad she is horrid.”

In my 4th grade class I have a child who is like that, so little self-control.  Now that it is the middle of the school year, her outbursts are close to habitual and I’m running out of strategies to modify her behavior.  By now she is often “sent to the office” for a “time out.”

When reading through articles, I get answers like ‘teachers must be able to remove disruptive students immediately’ suggesting that charter schools and parochial schools are better because they have that policy.  Perhaps those schools are quieter, but I can think of a number of reasons why all is silent, not necessarily kind and helpful reasons, and not simply because they get rid of disruptive students.

Of course, all teachers want their students to be quiet, studious, busy in productive activity-that’s what I learned in my credentialing classes.  After all, this is an intense phase of the school year when state tests are coming up in a month and students must have mastered all the subjects to be tested on California’s current criterion-referenced assessment tool.

At the same time, this is a school year of instability.  Though the Education Foundation is trying to cobble together funds, our school district deficit is large which means 102 teachers, including me, face lay offs.  In addition, guidelines for accountability are going to change due to new California legislation, and articles advocate a variety of evaluation mechanisms to lift up the highly qualified teachers and weed out the poorly qualified, all of which will take money, lots of money.  How will that happen?  The state is facing a budget deficit of $20 million for 2010-2011.

Do you see what I mean?  The ground is shaking under us and it’s hard to think of one more way to get this child to have a successful year.

Never give up.  We hold daily morning class meetings to review the business of the school day, remind ourselves how to act to help the class get through a successful day, talk over problems that might come up, defining over and over what happens if you choose to act out.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, highly qualified teachers, layoff notices, public schools, school accountability |
Be the first to leave a comment »

« Older Entries