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.