School funding reform must not fall short of its promise

Elizabeth Romero

Elizabeth Romero

As a parent in San Bernardino, I celebrated the passage of Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and the commitment I believed our state was making to support low-income students, English learners, and foster youth with the additional programs, services, and resources they need to be successful. I also celebrated the focus on local decision making and the opportunity for parents like me to be involved in improving education in San Bernardino.

But today, I am not celebrating. Today, I am worried that Local Control Funding Formula will fall short of its promises, based on the draft regulations that have been sent to the State Board of Education for their review on November 7.

I am worried that the regulations will not require districts to do as the law says – to spend LCFF money to provide more support and services to students who have not been served by our current system. That is what will be needed to improve their achievement. I am also worried that districts won’t be required to provide parents like me with the information I need to track funding and be a real partner in local decision making.

For the promise of local decision making to be realized, districts must do things differently than they have. That means more than just having parents sign on to a plan that others have developed. It means more than holding a few public hearings in a district office far away from our schools and neighborhood. It means creating time and space for real participation.  I am not an expert at drafting regulations, but I do know what it takes to involve parents. We need:

  • Clear and easily accessible information, especially about funding and achievement;
  • Democratic representation on district committees so all voices can be heard;
  • Translation of all written materials and during meetings;
  • Meetings held in locations and at times that allow parents like me to participate.

These are just a few specific ways in which the state could provide clear direction and examples to districts. The state should also be a model for what it means to invite parents, students, and community to be partners in making decisions. So far, that hasn’t really happened. The state’s implementation working group did not include parents of English learners, low-income students, or foster youth – or the students themselves.

That’s a problem. As long as we are not at the table, schools and districts, and even the state will continue to make the same decisions over and over again – decisions that have not supported or benefited all children equally.

I have five children attending San Bernardino schools, and a son who graduated from the district and is now attending Cal State San Bernardino. Through my involvement in my district I have seen first-hand the challenges facing students, especially English language learners, many of whom are also low-income. Too many of our students go through school and never get reclassified as proficient in English. That means they never get the courses they need to go straight to college right after graduation.

This is a serious problem in San Bernardino and around the state. Funds available through Local Control Funding Formula can and should be used to support these students through programs and services that will help them to be reclassified as fluent in English and to get enrolled in courses they need to graduate high school ready for college. That is what I want for my children – it is what all parents I work with want for their children.

With local control funding formula we have a chance – all of us – to do things differently. We have a chance to do things better.

I hope and pray our officials have the courage to do what it takes to help us all realize the promise of this historic reform.


Elizabeth Romero is the mother of six children a parent leader with Inland Congregations United for Change, part of PICO California.

Filed under: Commentary, Local Control Funding Formula, School Finance



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.

One Response to “School funding reform must not fall short of its promise”

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

  1. Doctor J on Nov 5, 2013 at 11:46 am11/5/2013 11:46 am

    • 000

    School districts intentionally leave out MEANINGFUL parental involvement from the largest financial decision in every district — salaries and benefits — not only of the district administration but also the labor negotiations with teacher’s unions. SOP in most districts is that the budgets are prepared behind closed doors by the “green shades” bean counters, only cursory summaries are shared with the public through fluffy PowerPoints that have as much meat as a marshmallow, and volunteer school boards have just become a rubber stamp in a process they don’t really understand the details of. To adequately educate parents and Boards about a comprehensive budget, often over $100,000,000 takes more than one or two meetings of marshmallow PowerPoints.

Template last modified: