Residue of once-promising finance reform bill in Brown's hands

Introduced as a comprehensive plan for K-12 finance reform, Assembly Bill 18 is a shell of its former self. The bill that the Legislature ended up passing last month would merely create a 21-member task force to explore various options and formulas for fairer and simpler school funding and make recommendations to the Legislature by April 1.

But even this seemingly non-controversial rewrite of the bill, with amendments intended to mollify Gov. Brown, may not escape his veto. State Board of Education President Michael Kirst and the board’s executive director, Sue Burr, both of whom advise Brown on education, indicated that the governor wants no competition to his plan for a weighted student formula – or another group distracting the Legislature from dealing with it next year.

Two years ago, Santa Monica Democrat Julia Brownley, then chair of the Assembly Education Committee, introduced AB 18 with the ambitious goal of making the finance system simpler and fairer. Her early version would have created three block grants for school districts – one for basic funding for all districts, one for teacher training, and one exclusively for English learners and poor children – as a way to steer more money in their direction. Brownley was able to get the bill through the Assembly in 2011, and she agreed to take an extra year to work out the difficult nuts and bolts of the new system.

California Governor Jerry Brown

Brown wants action, not more study, on school finance reform.

Then, in January, Brown superseded it by introducing a weighted student formula as part of his budget, and all attention turned to his proposal. It would direct extra funding to districts based on the proportion of English learners and low-income students enrolled. The Department of Finance changed the formula in May, in response to criticism, and Brown, sensing pushback from education groups he needs united behind Proposition 30, his tax initiative, agreed to hold off for a year.

Meanwhile, Brownley’s decision to turn AB 18 into a study committee reflected the feeling among many legislators that Brown was jamming them on a weighted student formula that hadn’t gone through a full legislative process, with public hearings and district-by-district breakdowns on the impact of the changes. The task force, which Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson would chair, would consider alternatives, as well as the difficult transition issues: how to convert to a new system while restoring funding to all districts for years of budget cuts. In its final form, Brown would get to appoint 10 of the 21 task force members, although the bill spells out the qualifications of the appointees. They’d have to include representatives from urban, suburban, and rural districts; a teacher; an administrator; a classified worker, such as a secretary; and a parent – restrictions Brown might not like even if he were OK with a task force. Torlakson also would have to find foundations willing to underwrite the full cost of the bill – something that hasn’t been done yet.

Regardless of  AB 18’s fate, interest in finance reform remains strong. Last month, leaders of two dozen organizations and seven prominent superintendents sent a letter to Assembly Speaker John Perez and Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, saying “it is time for California to move forward and implement this critical reform.”

“For far too long we have evaluated and bemoaned the failings and inequities in how we fund education, and now an opportunity exists to fundamentally restructure our finance system for the better. We must seize this opportunity. Please don’t let it pass,” they said. Organizations signing on included nonprofits focusing on education equity – Public Counsel, Children Now, the ACLU, and Education Trust-West; the California School Boards Assn. and the Association of California School Administrators; two business organizations – the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group; and two foundations – Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation and the Silver Giving Foundation.

The letter, a copy of which was sent to Gov. Brown, is a prompt to the Legislature not to sit around and wait for the next iteration of Brown’s weighted student formula but to start to become engaged now in what may be the critical education issue of 2013.


Filed under: Legislation, Local Control Funding Formula, School Finance, State Education Policy

Tags: , , , , , ,


Leave a Comment

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

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers.

  • 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 offensive comments.
  • EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.
  • Please limit comments to 250 words to prevent comment clutter; if you intend to say more please link out to a place that contains your full comment.
  • Comments with more than one link automatically enter moderation. Comments from new commenters are automatically moderated.
  • Repeated violation of this comment policy will lead to a warning. Continued violations will lead to a ban.

2 Responses to “Residue of once-promising finance reform bill in Brown's hands”

EdSource does not track who "likes or dislikes" a comment. We only track the number of likes and dislikes.

  1. CapitolReader on Sep 18, 2012 at 11:08 am09/18/2012 11:08 am

    • 000

    He should veto the bill. Enough with the task force, commissions, studies and reports. This has been going on for years — eventually you have to act.

    Plus he could just carbon copy a veto message he used for another bill this year:

    “For almost two years now, my administration has worked to eliminate
    unnecessary boards, commissions, advisory bodies, and reports, so
    that government is not so overloaded with the work of form over the
    work of function.

    I commend the author’s heartfelt desire to improve the lot of all
    children in the state, but the creation of another Council is not the
    solution. If anything, it lulls us into the fallacy that forms can
    solve our problems. Instead, let’s try to be honest and thoughtful
    about the good we can do, and then do the good…”

  2. Navigio on Sep 18, 2012 at 10:24 am09/18/2012 10:24 am

    • 000

    Why couldn’t this task force be used as an input to anything brown eventually proposes?  He changed his previous idea enough to make it clear he is open to suggestions. 
    If prop 30 fails this will be nowhere near the critical education issue of 2013, regardless of what happens with 38 IMHO. 
    Personally, although I agree our funding mechanism has problems, I have to wonder whether it is currently the primary cause of underfunding (either through increased admin costs or through inequities). Our deficit factor alone this year is almost 30% (and that on the largest ‘block’ of funding). Encroachments on general fund revenue seem to be reaching the 15% to 20% range. Again, on general purpose funds. ARRA funds have vanished. The list could go on and on. 

Template last modified: