(This commentary first appeared in TOP-Ed.)

Californians have been hit with so much bad budget news these past three years it’s easy to assume that we’re all suffering more or less equally. Nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to our schools. Essentially every fiscal maneuver our policymakers have undertaken to respond to the budget crisis has delivered more pain to the neediest schools and students.

Even before the traumatic $18 billion in accumulated cuts to school funding since 2009, the underlying school finance system had devolved to one that disproportionately denies low-income students and English learners an equal shot at learning the state’s academic content standards. Two constitutional challenges currently winding through the courts are confronting the fact that our districts are underfunded overall and that high-poverty districts and schools generally spend below or only at the state average even while they are trying to serve a needier student population.

Yet here come the budget cuts, heaping more shame and inequity on an already shameful and inequitable school funding system. If the state is not going to sufficiently fund our schools, it’s at least imperative to stop adopting policies that impose cuts in ways that harm the poorest and most educationally disadvantaged students.

Flexing funds away from the neediest

Let’s start with the “categorical flexibility” the Legislature granted to districts in February 2009, which allows schools to spend funds allocated to 40 categorical programs for any educational purpose. The introduction of flex categorical funding has paved the way for school districts to shift funds away from categorical programs that are often designed to assist disadvantaged students. A recent study conducted by RAND and PACE Research Network confirms that districts have been using flex categorical funds to help balance their general budget – rather than using them for the purposes for which they were originally intended.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) 2011 report, the shifting of these funds has led to reductions in funding for several programs intended to assist disadvantaged students. For instance, 75 percent  of school districts polled by the LAO have shifted funds away from “Supplemental Instruction,” 72 percent have shifted funds from the “Pupil Retention Block Grant,” 68 percent have shifted funds from the “Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant,” and 63 percent have shifted funds from “supplemental instruction for students failing the high school exit exam.” The LAO also reports that some districts have completely eliminated some of these important programs. Many school administrators now express concern, as found in the RAND report, that categorical flexibility and the shift in funds away from the support of disadvantaged students is increasing inequitable educational opportunities in California.

Many organizations, including my own, have complained that rules adopted by the California Department of Education associated with flex categorical funding make it very difficult to track and analyze state K-12 funding. Following the shift to flex categorical funding, the Public Policy Institute of California observes that revenue codes for flexed programs were terminated, and the RAND report further found that some districts no longer track spending for individual programs. Therefore, a full understanding of the disproportionate effects of flex categorical funding may not be possible.

Cuts derail flexibility’s true purpose

Don’t get me wrong. I’m generally in favor of expanding district flexibility and reducing the too numerous categorical programs that have sprouted like wildflowers in California’s school finance system post-Serrano. But flexibility is supposed to help better serve student needs, not to facilitate underserving the neediest students.

The fact is the state’s education funding cuts, when combined with the new flexibility, have led to high-poverty schools reducing and eliminating critical programs and services at far greater rates than low-poverty schools. A 2010 report from UCLA/IDEA shows that high-poverty schools are nearly three times more likely than low-poverty schools (49 percent vs. 17 percent) to eliminate summer school outright and four times more likely (65.6 percent vs. 15 percent) to experience teacher layoffs.

Another report by UCLA/IDEA in 2011 shows that 25 percent of the basic-aid or high-local-revenue districts studied cut instructional days compared with more than 50 percent of other districts, and that 25 percent of the basic-aid or high-local-revenue districts reduced counseling staff compared to more than 50 percent of other districts. Furthermore, IDEA reports that in 2008-2009 middle schools serving more than 90 percent Latino, African American, and American Indian students were almost 10 times more likely than schools with a majority of white and Asian students to experience severe shortages of qualified teachers.

The Association of California School Administrators found that, since 2008-2009, overall categorical program funding has been cut 20 percent compared to a general aid or “revenue limit” cut of just 10 percent. Combine that with the Public Policy Institute of California’s (PPIC) observation that high-poverty school districts generally receive more categorical funding than low-poverty districts, and it’s clear why these budget cuts are having a far greater effect on disadvantaged California students.

The picture that emerges is one of districts struggling to retain the core program – a teacher in front of a classroom – while being forced and permitted to cut all the supplemental programs around the core that are designed to give low-income students, English learners, and students with disabilities meaningful access to the general education curriculum.

Deferrals heighten pain disproportionately

 

The last three budgets have included payment deferrals as a way, on paper at least, to avoid programmatic cuts. For example, the 2011 LAO report shows that in 2010-2011, 17 percent of the Proposition 98 school funding guarantee was “funded” by amounts borrowed from the next fiscal year. In other words, the state promises the money now but sends it to districts next year. The report goes on to show that, in response to recent deferrals, 74 percent of districts have drawn down district reserves, 45 percent have borrowed from special funds, and 28 percent have relied on external borrowing. Furthermore, more than 20 percent of districts report they have, in fact, made programmatic cuts rather than borrow.

Therefore, school districts with the highest reserve funds and best access to special funds and external funding are in a far better position to avoid programmatic cuts caused by deferrals. Moreover, as shown by the 2010 LAO report, most of the funds deferred in the 2009-10 and 2010-2011 budgets were designated as revenue limit funds rather than categorical funds. (As a result, high revenue basic-aid districts – which no longer receive any revenue limit funds from the state but receive most of their support from local property taxes – have had far less of their funding deferred than the typically lower-revenue non-basic-aid districts.)

Private donations widening opportunity gap

Finally, things have become so dire that we are seeing a breathtaking increase in the private financing of public education in California. The RAND report observes that many districts are using donations from parents and foundations to fill the critical gaps created by the loss of funds. The use of external funding sources, however, greatly favors low-poverty schools. According to the 2010 UCLA/IDEA report, 80 percent of schools receive donations from parent organizations, but low-poverty schools on average receive eight times more ($167,797) than high-poverty schools ($21,319). The UCLA/IDEA 2011 report also shows that schools with few students from low-income families received on average $100,000 in donations compared to $5,000 for schools with a high proportion of poor students.

Of course parents should be able to support their local schools to add enrichment opportunities. What’s disturbing about the California scenario is that parents are being asked to fill the shoes of the state by funding core educational programs like music and art and, increasingly, salaries for critical teaching and student support positions. As a result, the wealth gap in our state is translating more than ever into a tangible opportunity gap.

End the unfairness

 

California is at the bottom nationally in terms of its level of per-pupil spending and in the percentage of personal income spent on public education. Its school finance system is built on 40-year-old anachronistic formulas that bear no relation to delivering the resources necessary for providing a standards-based education.

As the Stanford Getting Down to Facts studies demonstrated, the system now sends widely divergent amounts of funding per pupil to districts of similar size and demographics without any relationship to student needs. Finally, the system fails to sufficiently take into account the extra needs of low-income students and English learners, particularly when they are concentrated at the same schools.

Rather than addressing any of these inadequacies or inequities, the state has chosen to sink our children’s educational prospects lower and lower with unprecedented funding cuts. And rather than protecting the neediest students in these tough times, our policymakers, with their categorical flexibility, deferrals, and increased reliance on local fundraising, have served up the most severe cuts to those who can least afford it.

It’s time for our policymakers to reverse these funding cuts and address the underlying inadequacies and inequities within our school finance system. And to the extent that any such ultimate solutions remain a distant hope, Sacramento needs to stop this unfairness and take a much more nuanced approach to imposing its fiscal pain on our children. The next dollars that have to be cut should be cut as far away as possible from the neediest students.

John Affeldt is Managing Attorney at Public Advocates Inc., a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy. He is a leading voice on educational equity issues and has been recognized by California Lawyer Magazine as a California Attorney of the Year, by The Recorder as an Attorney of the Year, and as aLeading Plaintiff Lawyer in America by Lawdragon Magazine.


Filed under: Achievement Gap, Commentary, K-12 Reform, School Finance · Tags:

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers. The level of thoughtfulness of our community of readers is rare among online news sites. To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective. Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to. EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and non-germaine comments.


EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. JacMac says:

    How about opening up some of those off shore oil reserves to generate revenue to help defray the costs?

  2. John Affeldt says:

    Paul,

    The piece addresses your point.  Districts are doing what they can to survive.    Offering “flexibility” when the ship is sinking only serves to sanction casting off the most challenging passengers first.

    John

  3. el says:

    I’m not sure why it would surprise anyone that these programs would be cut. That was pretty much the point of flex-and-sweep, to give districts the choice to use that program money for the general fund. In general, I suspect most districts did so because there was no plausible alternative. I doubt anyone jumped for joy about eliminating reading tutors or supplemental instruction.
     
    Other programs that have been defunded have been gifted education, art and music, PE , and adult education.
     
    I will be interested to see the studies about where districts actually did spend their money, and what strategies they used to keep programs in spirit if not to the letter. For example, our district took Community Day School money and used it to target kids that were at risk and put together a pull-out program with the regular classes, intervening before the kids needed to leave the campus altogether. I understand it was very successful and for the particular configuration of students in play that year, a much better use of the money. More students got more benefit.

  4. Michael G. says:

    http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf
    (o.11 sec., 13.5M hits – anyone here actually look at data??)
    $5.5B decrease in total budget = 6.1%.  Health and Human services cut by $3.5B = 13%, Higher Ed by $1.4B = 12%, K-12 by $1.5B = 4%.   K-12 got a deal – thank your lucky stars!
     
    A few weeks ago, TOP-Ed estimated the “tax the oil cos.” ideas would bring in about $2.1B – chicken feed – not that I’m against it but give it up – the world economy is in free fall, real US unemployment rate is 16% (counting those who gave up looking), 23% of houses are under water (was 20% in January) and there is talk of the next bubble being student loans.  And you’re worried that Summer school is cut.  If it weren’t for the new deal transfer programs mitigating the effects we would be looking at Great Depression  II.  And we may yet.
     
    BTW, the retirement fund is going down, down, down along with everything else.

  5. Regis says:

    I had to laugh, because here’s an attorney, one of an army of many attorneys who will sue, sue and sue again to correct any bias’ or injustices.  They will clog our court system for years.  A recent and most telling example was the San Francisco Lawyer group, made up of Latino lawyers, the “Lawyers Committees for Civil Rights”  that go around suing school districts, using the California Voting Rights Act,  if they don’t have enough Latino’s on the board, meanwhile generating millions of dollars in fees.  Kind of hypocritical, don’t you think, because where do you think those lawyer’s fees come from?  It’s from that endangered species, the California Taxpayer!  And what does it take away from, those millions of dollars?  From the schools!

    Nope, we need common sense.  We don’t need to throw money endlessly at this problem.  We’ve got a huge population, that we cater to, that frankly, isn’t interested in speaking english.  Why should they?  TV, advertising, government brochures, sales signs in stores and just about anything is in spanish.  Forget the divisive ‘race politics’.  Do you want to become an American?  And FYI, I’m a French Canadian immigrant, who came here speaking french, grew up in Downtown Los Angeles (6th and Wilshire, between Echo Park and McArthur Park) and had no ‘special classes’  or ‘extended needs’ or what not. 

    Finally, the money’s not there and good luck finding it.

  6. Regis says:

    Lars, go right on ahead and tax those ‘dirty’ oil companies!  You’ll see it soon enough at the gas pump.  You think a tax on them, won’t be passed along?   California is THE most difficult environment to even run a refinery.  We haven’t built a refinery here since the late 60′s.   And go figure, that CARB mandates a dozen, no two dozen different gasoline blends in California.  We’ve got a LA Basin blend, a mountain blend, a San Berdo Blend and ad infinitum.

    You can’t even expand a refinery to meet expanding need, without running into a huge, hostile court system and organized ‘poor people’ from ‘environmental justice’ groups who think that it’s unfair that they live in a poor industrial neighborhood.

    While I’m no fan of CEO pay, at least the oil companies produce SOMETHING.   Tell me what Wall Street has produced with 800 billion dollars of QE Stimulus money?

  7. Lars Johnson says:

    What happened to this tax the oil companies initiative? Great way to fund colleges, you need to go after these price-gouging oil companies and their 100 million dollar a year CEO’s!

  8. Pam says:

    From the classroom perspective, it appears that districts use flexible or borrowed  funds to patch holes that have legal/public opinion value.  No summer school, no homework club and the only tutorial/after school programs available are the ones donated by teachers or churches. It is very true that these programs were available just 2 short years ago… 
    Pam

  9. Paul Muench says:

    John,  you put significant focus on the flexible spending for districts.  Is the point that flexibility is only half  a solution to school finance or do you believe that some districts are mis-using the flexibility?

  10. JIMH says:

    How dare those Democrats in Sacramento cut funding and defer school money…….LOL…….Just to spend it on more Welfare programs, essentially buying votes to keep them in power…….
     
    Gosh, funny how this political system works……You get the Government you deserve………Don’t like it?  Vote ‘em out………
     
    Yeah,  the Teacher Unions have got all the Teachers lined up to vote Democrat again……Say, How’s that “Hope and Change” working out for you folks?