With uncommon speed, school districts and charter schools this fall will receive substantial money they didn’t foresee coming their way a few months ago to prepare for the Common Core standards. The catch: They first have to tell the public how they plan to use it.

The state budget that Gov. Jerry Brown is poised to sign includes $1.25 billion – about $200 per student, based on 2012-13 enrollment – for schools to transition to a new set of English language arts and math standards that students will be tested on in spring 2015. Pressed by districts needing all the help they can get, Brown added $1 billion in his revised budget in May for the new standards, and legislative leaders negotiated an additional 25 percent – $250 million – in the budget awaiting Brown’s signature this week.

Assemblymember Susan Bonilla

Assemblymember Susan Bonilla

“This is a strong indicator that the governor and Legislature will help districts be successful in the shift to Common Core,” said Assemblymember Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, who, as chair of the education subcommittee of the Assembly Budget Committee, fought for additional Common Core money. Districts also have other sources of money they can direct to Common Core: federal Title I money for low-income children, as well as Title II, targeted for principal and teacher training, and extra money they’ll be getting this fall under the new Local Control Funding Formula.

The trailer bill, spelling out details in the budget, gives districts latitude to spend the $1.25  billion on teacher training, textbooks and materials and technology. The latter is needed for districts to offer the online, standardized Common Core tests and to begin the shift to digital learning.

“We wanted to keep flexibility, because there are all levels of readiness in the state. Some are ahead of the curve,” said Bonilla.

Districts will be able obtain the money in two installments, in September and then November. But first they must create a plan for it and hold two hearings: the first to present the proposal to the public, the second to vote on it. This will be sort of a trial run for the accountability plan that districts will have to write, starting in 2014, under the new Local Control Funding Formula, giving districts more flexibility to spend state education money.

The  state Department of Education must have districts’ plans for the Common Core spending in hand but will not vet them, said Erin Gabel, director of Government Affairs for State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson. For guidance, she suggested that districts refer to the 60-page Common Core implementation plan, with seven key objectives, that the State Department of Education completed in April.

The state was more prescriptive in the late 1990s, when it adopted the California standards in math and English language arts. The state determined which textbooks districts could buy and funded curriculum training for teachers. Now, the options are wide open, and districts are free to hunt the internet for guidance from other states, like New York, that are further ahead and from organizations – like America Achieves, funded by the Gates Foundation, and Bloomberg Philanthropies – that are clearinghouses of information and lesson plans.

Nonetheless, the risk is there that districts will blow the money on textbooks with overstated claims that they are Common Core aligned, or on overpriced technology.

Districts will have two years to spend the money, but will receive it all this fall. The Department will report back to the Legislature next year on what districts did with the money.


Filed under: Common Core, Featured, K-12 Reform, Local Control Funding Formula, Reporting & Analysis, School Finance, State and Federal Policies, Technology, Tests and Assessments · 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. Lori Walton says:

    Is the funding source of CCSSI Proposition 30 revenue?

    Thank you.

  2. Eric Premack says:

    Does this program signal the beginning of the erosion of the “local control” aspect of the new funding formula?

  3. Doug McRae says:

    John — What led you to characterize the options for adopting textbooks for local districts as “wide open” under the CC block grant? The trailer bill language for the CC block grant [AB 86 Sec 85 (d) (2) says disticts SHALL expend funds for instructional materials pursuant to a bunch of Ed Code sections that say essentially the materials purchased with CC block grant funds must be on the state adopted list [either the full adoption list yet to be completed by the IQC and approved by the State Board or the supplementary adoption lists]. That is the same restriction that was the case for purchase of instrctional materials under previous categorical Instructional Materials Fund purchases. It is true that districts can buy whatever instructional materials they want from their unrestricted general fund dollars, but it appears that is not true for CC block grant dollars. It seems like your “wide open” characterization in the post is misleading.

    If your post is accurate and indeed CC block grant funds can be spent for any instructional mateials, on the state approved lists or not, then why are we going through the CFIR and IQC efforts to review materials and construct lists of state approved materials? Seems to me the Gov could blue pencil CFIR and IQC from the budget and nothing would be lost . . . . . Doug

    1. John Fensterwald says:

      Doug: CDE maintains that there is flexibility in the choice of materials. A department spokesperson reports that the references in the instructional materials section of the budget language refer to standards, not the instructional materials adoption. Further, CDE references AB 1246, because it was a very important bill permitting K-8 materials that did not have to be state-adopted to be used.

      It seems to me that the process of creating curriculum standards and reviewing materials will provide useful guidance to districts on Common Core, which they will be free to choose or not. With a profusion of digital textbooks, software and materials certain to come to market in the next few years, it wouldn’t be prudent to tie districts’ spending to a point in time.

      1. Doug McRae says:

        Interesting. The CDE interpretation differs from the interpretation I got from legislative staff. If indeed the CDE interpretation is correct, then I wonder why textbook publishers would want to participate in the IQC / SBE instructional materials process — if they can market their textbooks etc targeting CC block grant funds whether or not those textbooks on on the state list, then what is the advantage to being on the list? Something doesn’t add up here . . . .

  4. Eric Premack says:

    Minor point, but a “biggie” to cash-strapped districts and charter schools: If I read the law correctly, cash is to flow, in July and August.

    1. John Fensterwald says:

      Eric: I guess the Legislature can snap its fingers, but the Department of Education tells me that by the time it does whatever it needs to do to dispense with the money, dollars will first flow in September.