A new study that examines the implementation of California’s Local Control Funding Formula revealed that district leaders welcome a need-based local funding model but that they were hindered by a lack of time, information, skills and resources.

The report, “Toward a Grand Vision: Early Implementation of California’s Local Control Funding Formula,” was written by Daniel C. Humphrey and Julia E. Koppich and released by SRI International. The authors looked at the first year of implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 10 districts across California.

Among the challenges cited by districts were the tight timeline for developing Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) that outline priorities and the need to develop new ways of working. As one district official put it, “The LCAP process really pushed the emphasis on collaboration. We recognized that people were working in silos. And we had to change.” Small districts especially felt overburdened as they developed their plans, citing insufficient staffing and the need for more training to understand and take on the requirements of developing their local plans.

Inadequate time and resources also posed a challenge to achieving the meaningful level of parent and community engagement required by the LCAP. One official, whose district received input from only about 4 percent of families in the district, said, “LCFF is a historic effort, but we really haven’t prepared our frontline people, really principals, on how to do engagement.” Other districts cited serious obstacles to engaging with parents at the poorest schools, including language, transportation and childcare barriers.

Despite a steep learning curve and the need to develop new skills and community ties, the study found strong support among district leaders for local control and “cautious optimism” about the future of the LCFF law. A common refrain cited in the study was “Give us time to get this right and, please, don’t return to prescriptive categorical funding.”

SHARE ARTICLE

Comments (84)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    Floyd stated “Perhaps some districts are implementing it well, and if so those implementing it badly should emulate those doing well.”

    May I ask who is going to make Districts implement “it” well?

    I live in a District that raises employee compensation and then figures out how to balance the budget.

    In 2021 we will have 180 furlough days so that we can have the highest paid teachers in the nation.

    SO much for students rights.

  2. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    Let me correct that:

    The United states Constitution prohibits California from enacting a law that denies any student of an adequate education (irrespective of their individual wealth, race or ethnicity) simply because they live in a wealthy school district. That is discrimination based on wealth per Rodriguez; and is a violation of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

  3. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    The United states Constitution prohibits California from denying an adequate education to a student (irrespective of their individual wealth, race or ethnicity) simply because they live in a wealthy school district.

    PERIOD.

  4. Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

    Dawn: The term "adequacy" has a particular meaning in the law that has been defined by the courts in several cases in other states: Does the student funding provided by a state allow for the educational system to bring student achievement to the level required by state adopted standards? A new hurdle has been created here as CA is now operating under Coon Core and not the formerly adopted CA State Content Standards. It was the state … Read More

    Dawn:

    The term “adequacy” has a particular meaning in the law that has been defined by the courts in several cases in other states: Does the student funding provided by a state allow for the educational system to bring student achievement to the level required by state adopted standards?

    A new hurdle has been created here as CA is now operating under Coon Core and not the formerly adopted CA State Content Standards. It was the state standards that were used in the adequacy studies you reference under Governor Schwarzenegger’s “Getting Down to Facts” report.

    That report was trotted out at Stanford University, but unfortunately the whole adequacy question got conveniently swept under the rug by allowing representatives of the anti-school funding, anti-tax, Hoover Institution blow a lot of smoke about various system changes X, Y, and Z that MUST take place before any funding increases could be discussed. And at that time, 2004-5, CA was all the way up to 44th in the US in funding per child. Trust me, if X, Y, and Z had been accomplished then there would have been changes Q, R, S, and T that MUST be done before funding increases could be discussed. See a pattern here? At no point would the influential worthies at Hoover, or any of the other anti-funding/tax groups, been really willing to discuss increases in funding.

    The study suggested that adequacy could be achieved with between $24 and $32 billion. There was even one study that mentioned $1.3 trillion (with a T) in increases. No one actually contested this study, but it did get eyes rolling. So if you add the base funding at the 2007 level, with the $20 billion in cuts during the financial sector caused recession, and then add $28 billion (average $24 and $32 billion) extra it comes out to quite a tidy little sum. K-12 education and higher education get about 52% of the state budget now, or $61 billion roughly. That leaves “only” around $47 billion to conduct all of the other state’s business. Of that about 1/2 (25% of total) goes to Health and Human Services and some to prisons and the rest diced up for everything else. So where do you get $48 billion for “adequacy” with the current revenue stream?

    Basically, it would take the entire state budget to go to education just to be adequate. Is “adequate” sufficient for the 9th largest economy in the world?

    A report released today shows CA ranks with Arkansas, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Alabama in dealing with homeless children, CA, being the size it is, has the most. Health and Human Services is not adequately funded.

    You continually restate that you “are not an educator.” From someone who is, and at least most teachers I know feel this way, if there are kids here then we need to have them in school. No one “recruited” them. Their parents brought them. If they are ‘unaccompanied” they are escaping a murderous homeland. That they are here is a good thing. It is their bad luck and ours that this state no longer has adequate funding for kids.

    Replies

    • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

      Gary- You are speaking a bit over my head. But here is what I feel in my heat of hearts: The court said a State Funding System that deprives a student of their constitutional right to a free and adequate education based solely on where a student lives, irrespective of the individual students personal wealth would be found to be an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. That is what LCFF … Read More

      Gary-

      You are speaking a bit over my head. But here is what I feel in my heat of hearts:

      The court said a State Funding System that deprives a student of their constitutional right to a free and adequate education based solely on where a student lives, irrespective of the individual students personal wealth would be found to be an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. That is what LCFF does. It deprives every student that lives in a wealthy school district of an adequate education whether they are rich, poor, or English Language Learners.

      If you are saying the formula is constitutional because the Base Grant is the same for everyone and that adequacy means equal opportunity; the law still fails as Rodriquez predicted, because the law deprives the poor and ELL in our District of adequate funding… and any additional funding… simply because they happen to live in a wealthy suburban school District. That is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment according to the Supreme Courts decision in Rodriquez.

      And I might add- that fact that Jerry Brown named this the Local Control Funding Formula (Local Control was discussed in Rodriquez) shows just how well thought out this system was. Jerry Brown know that this formula will never stand up to strict judicial scrutiny in Federal Court – not until he gives school districts the power to tax themselves to provide what the State is already constitutionally obligated to provide.

      Everyone involved in Public Education in the State of California should be ashamed of yourselves. You are destroying the future of 53,000 students in my District alone- and for what? Do you really value the children of other nations more than the children of this great State? Because actions speak louder than words.

      So the law cares not about equalizing opportunities, but redistributing wealth from a “wealthy area” to a poor area.

      WOW- I guess the poor and ELL in my District deserve less then the poor and ELL everywhere else in the United States.

      Maybe the law was written to punish anyone who lives in a conservative part of California rather than to help poor students and ELL’s? Food for thought.

      • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

        Though the fine points of the law get rather murky in Rodriguez, after some research I'm having trouble understanding how the 14th Amendment helps, Dawn, though I'm entirely sympathetic to your problem of not being able to raise funding as well as the problem of having to double tax yourself since your initial taxes were applied disproportionately. LCFF is a liberally-minded disproportionate redistribution of ed dollars based upon the idea of need. When have the … Read More

        Though the fine points of the law get rather murky in Rodriguez, after some research I’m having trouble understanding how the 14th Amendment helps, Dawn, though I’m entirely sympathetic to your problem of not being able to raise funding as well as the problem of having to double tax yourself since your initial taxes were applied disproportionately. LCFF is a liberally-minded disproportionate redistribution of ed dollars based upon the idea of need. When have the courts ever ruled that need should be the determinate in choosing how to distribute education funding? When did INequality become the driver of constitutionality?

        By striking down the Texas appellate decision in favor of the defendants, the Supreme Court decision, in addition to overruling any strict scrutiny due to the lack of specific textual educational referencing in the US Constitution, held that Texas did NOT violate 14th Amendment At its core, Rodriguez upheld the idea that a state does not have to provide absolutely equal funding to students IF the policy does not create a suspect underprivileged class by so doing. Dissenters claimed poor districts lacked property value to tax themselves sufficiently to supplement the state guarantee in Texas’ dual financing structure.

        The current court is probably split 5-4 in the same fashion as it was in the late 60’s.

        I’m no constitutional scholar and can only offer a lay opinion, FWIW. But it would seem to me that you’d have an easier route to success if you didn’t make it a Federal case. Serrano already provides that the state must offer equal opportunity. The question then is what constitutes equal opportunity? A financial system that provides more funding to one student than another is not equal. It overrides the Serrano band legislation. But LCFF codifies unequal education funding based upon need, essentially maintaining that educational cost is relative to student economic status and the ability to speak English. Why is need the operating principle in education funding, when the California Constitution claims equal opportunity is the operating principle? If need and opportunity are one and the same, the state would be on the hook constitutionally to redistribute education dollars forever unless there are no more FRPM or non English speakers. There is no precedent to make the state responsible for equal academic output, only equal financial input.

        Dawn,you have a daunting task if it is your intention to find LCFF violates the 14th Amendment. Trying to portray rich folks in Orange county as a suspect class is a tough assignment even if it is true. The reality is that most of us are middle class people who are being squeezed from all sides and can’t afford the luxury of paying for private schools.

        • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

          I think it started with brown. ‘Separate is inherently unequal’ implies that equality of resources is insufficient to determine ‘equality’, thus the measure must be found elsewhere.

      • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

        Dawn: Those of us in education value children. Nothing to be ashamed of there. Parcel taxes allow districts to raise local dollars to support local programs. The ruling in Serrano v. Priest kind of answered your question on the constitutionality of redistributing wealth to support equal education. Because of political considerations, the legislature allowed basic aide districts to continue to give educational advantages that could be provided by more funding to the already advantaged.So , Revenue Limited Income, … Read More

        Dawn:

        Those of us in education value children. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

        Parcel taxes allow districts to raise local dollars to support local programs.

        The ruling in Serrano v. Priest kind of answered your question on the constitutionality of redistributing wealth to support equal education. Because of political considerations, the legislature allowed basic aide districts to continue to give educational advantages that could be provided by more funding to the already advantaged.So , Revenue Limited Income, enacted to implement Serrano never really did the “equalizing” that was the intent of the ruling. LCFF moves (again) in that direction, but it (again) leaves the big money in basic aide districts on the table.

        Putting the somewhat “jingoistic” elements of your concerns aside, your contention that CA students are being denied “adequate” educational funding, at least as described in precedent on other states, is in my opinion quite accurate. The core of my argument is the state has many state responsibilities and doesn’t have the dollars to fund any of them adequately in broad terms. This is a result of anti-tax fervor that didn’t exactly begin with Prop 13, but certainly gained steam with it. Then we have CA as the only oil producing state in the nation that doesn’t have an oil extraction tax. Then we have the oddities of trying to pass a state budget and raise revenues to meet increasing costs that requires a super majority in the legislature or at the polls. (Somewhat rectified by Prop 25.) This created a system where wildly unpopular minorities in the state legislature were able to use their power to extract tax cuts for business that undercut state funding that should go to schools. Then we had a series of other dumb tax cuts enacted when the state economy was booming. Then we had a really dumb cut to auto registration fees that punched an immediate multi-billion dollar hole in all state budget categories. When a reasonable governor wisely tried to correct that maneuver the electorate impeached him and put a B-movie actor in office with the obvious consequences that things just got worse.

        Now, read that last paragraph over and you really have a bunch of things we can all be ashamed of. At least if you voted in certain ways.

        • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

          Gary- I am speaking as a frustrated parent who has for the past 8 years watched resources just drain from my school- and now that I understand my District's budget - the new funding formula and common core I know that California is failing to educate students at an accelerating pace. I will give you an example. Like many parents, I was really worried about rushing to adopt common core. In hind sight, I am grateful … Read More

          Gary-

          I am speaking as a frustrated parent who has for the past 8 years watched resources just drain from my school- and now that I understand my District’s budget – the new funding formula and common core I know that California is failing to educate students at an accelerating pace.

          I will give you an example. Like many parents, I was really worried about rushing to adopt common core. In hind sight, I am grateful for the implementation of Common Core because it was the first real way for parents to understand how California Standards compared with the rest of the nation.

          The old California State Standards required Algebra I and two years of math to graduate. Common Core requires Algebra II and three years of math to graduate. That tells me that California is way behind the rest of the United States in math- and the LCAP data from my district proves that fact. Before common core- I would have believed that California was providing our students with the best education because that is what everyone tells us. Now I know that isn’t true and that as a parent I have to make sure that my children are completing math they need to really complete a STEM education.

          The truth is that any child who fails to complete A-G requirements and master higher math will not be prepared for college level work or a “job of the future”.

          I have a question that someone brought up to me. They stated that there are studies that show that California spends $13,000 per students however the money is not making it to the classroom. If that is true, where is the money going? I know exactly what money my district receives and I know exactly where it is spent- and we do not have an administrator problem- so the $6,000 per pupil that should be making it to the classroom is going somewhere at the County or State level. Any thoughts?

          • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

            Sure. What's the source of the $13K claim? Anybody can come up with some conspiracy theory about the "guvmint" getting all these dollars and having secret spending agendas. There was a lady at the SBE meeting the other day who claimed Bill Gates was stealing kids' "data" from their brain waves. Anybody can claim anything. I have some serious issues with Mr. Gates and his over-involvement in education, a topic he has no expertise in, … Read More

            Sure. What’s the source of the $13K claim? Anybody can come up with some conspiracy theory about the “guvmint” getting all these dollars and having secret spending agendas. There was a lady at the SBE meeting the other day who claimed Bill Gates was stealing kids’ “data” from their brain waves. Anybody can claim anything. I have some serious issues with Mr. Gates and his over-involvement in education, a topic he has no expertise in, but the “brain waves” thing is a stretch.

            It might be possible to take all of the state budgeted dollars for education, add in all of the basic aide dollars, all of the (projected) dollars from bond issues and parcel taxes, maybe throw in community college funding while you were at it, and then divide by the number of students and come up with a pretty strange figure. But it would be pretty strange and wouldn’t have anything to do with how funding is actually allocated. You know funny things can be done with figures. Like the old story about four regular working guys sitting at a bar when Bill Gates walks in and now everyone is a multimillionaire–on average.

            When the NEA and Ed Week look at CA’s lousy funding and call it lousy it’s pretty objective. They have no dog in CA’s taxing and school funding fights. The fundamental and inescapable problem is CA doesn’t collect enough revenue to fund its schools and other services adequately. There are all kinds of efforts to get the public to pay no attention to child poverty and the low revenues “behind the curtain.” And they work. See Vergara.

            The NEA does a survey on state spending (not adjusted for cost-of-living) and so does Education Week’s Quality Counts. Two good sources that don’t come near $13K. And Ed Week’s is adjusted for regional cost-of-living so it provides the most realistic measure.

            And, as to your assertion: “The truth is that any child who fails to complete A-G requirements and master higher math will not be prepared for college level work or a ‘job of the future’.” Well, it might be “truth” but it is not fact as it is plainly an opinion. An opinion widely disseminated and repeated, but still an opinion.

            Common Core has nothing to do with graduation requirements. And CA’s “old standards” were widely recognized as being some of the “best” in the nation. One of the charges often leveled against CCSS is that they are “dumbing down” the standards. CA has actually been “ahead” of the rest of the nation. All of this is dependent on the interpretation of “best” and “ahead” as equating to harder. Harder is always supposed to be “best.” Those of us actually in education tend to believe that instructionally appropriate is the best and that “one size fits few.” It turns out that most of the research being put out by legitimate education sources lately tends to support those of us who are actually in education. The research is coming late to the party but, as they say, better late than never.

            So, whatever you thought was “revealed” by CCSS wasn’t in reality.

          • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

            In response to Gary who stated: "Common Core has nothing to do with graduation requirements. And CA’s “old standards” were widely recognized as being some of the “best” in the nation. One of the charges often leveled against CCSS is that they are “dumbing down” the standards. CA has actually been “ahead” of the rest of the nation." Humm- How can California be "best in the nation" when they are two years behind the rest of the … Read More

            In response to Gary who stated: “Common Core has nothing to do with graduation requirements. And CA’s “old standards” were widely recognized as being some of the “best” in the nation. One of the charges often leveled against CCSS is that they are “dumbing down” the standards. CA has actually been “ahead” of the rest of the nation.”

            Humm-

            How can California be “best in the nation” when they are two years behind the rest of the country in Math?

            Most parents have no idea, but my older son is in Private school which had no problems transitioning to Common Core because they already required their students to have 3 years of math and the completion of Algebra 2? Most students in CUSD were only completing Algebra I by graduation- so not only were they not ready for College level math, they were having to take remedial classes at Community college before they could begin college level classes.

            In actuality- Common Core is a minimum that is needed to get kids into Community College- not prepare a student for a STEM education in a selective 4- year University.

            California may have, at one time, had the best education system in the Nation – but as Common Core has demonstrated – when you compare apples to apples- California is 2 years behind the rest of the Nation in math.

          • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

            Dawn:

            You have a lot of catching up to do. Good luck.

          • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

            Catching up has nothing to do with it.You’re caught up.

          • Celeste Phooey Condon 2 years ago2 years ago

            This is why we need the numbers. Does getting rid of honors hurt the strongest students? Does it help the weakest? Are some young teachers in the same school stronger than some older teachers? Do certain cultural practices help test scores? We as a State need to transform every element of our lives to maximize test scores. The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging that there is … Read More

            This is why we need the numbers. Does getting rid of honors hurt the strongest students? Does it help the weakest? Are some young teachers in the same school stronger than some older teachers? Do certain cultural practices help test scores? We as a State need to transform every element of our lives to maximize test scores. The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging that there is one. No one will be talking about problems for this year of delay. Score one for the status quo. Dawn makes good points.

          • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

            Re: Honor Courses

            In the Capistrano Unified School District we have ONE honors course: Honors Pre-calculus. That means that unless students take all AP or IB classes the highest GPA can attain from a CUSD High School is a 4.0 + a bump for Pre-Calculus.

            Now my District is struggling to comply with the new UC honors course revision policy

            http://www.ucop.edu/agguide/getting-started/announcements/

            http://www.ucop.edu/doorways/

    • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

      Gary, my wife is Nicaraguan, I've been there 5 times. Nicaragua and Central America are not unlivable or unreasonably violent. There are some murders but like here most murdered are in gangs. It is not like the '80s. We are now hearing we are obligated to let these people move here because they will be murdered and are victims of violent gangs, but I bet when they compile the stats in … Read More

      Gary, my wife is Nicaraguan, I’ve been there 5 times. Nicaragua and Central America are not unlivable or unreasonably violent. There are some murders but like here most murdered are in gangs. It is not like the ’80s. We are now hearing we are obligated to let these people move here because they will be murdered and are victims of violent gangs, but I bet when they compile the stats in 10-15 years, you’ll find out these teens actually murder other people at a higher rate than the population. They are only the victims of murder as a matter of losing battles they choose as many believe in murder as a means of settling disputes, have actively joined gangs and believe in the gang lifestyle.

      I’d be all for them moving here if they did their best in school. I am not seeing that for the most part. I am seeing people who will have social pathologies they will pass to their children. They are not the victims of violence but the perpetrators. I’m not talking about all Central Americans who move here but specifically the ones the far left is claiming we must allow to move here because they will otherwise be victims of murder, the ones who came without parents. It’s a lot like the homeless saying they can’t sleep in a shelter because they’ll be attacked…by other homeless people. Who’s the victim and who is the perpetrator?

      As for minimum, Asian immigrants make that hard to set in stone. Schools many feel are horrible and inadequate are ones Asians thrive in. How can we say an exact dollar amount is adequate and another is inadequate? In San Francisco, the schools receiving the most money are ones almost any upper middle class white would consider unthinkable to send their kids to, yet some Asians thrive there. However, the ones everyone would love to send their kids to receive less money. Money is just one factor. The quality of students and their parents is bigger. The quality of teachers is a factor but roughly equal among schools, though I agree with the premise of Vergara that the current seniority system clusters bad teachers at some of the worst schools and causes high turnover there.

      But intellectually, this is very hard to set. Most kids here would get a better education in other nations which spend less and are beating the pants off us, and few of us would choose to send our kids to 90-95% of public schools in Washington DC, which spends over 30k a kid. It is very complicated.

      • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

        Floyd- It’s not complicated. Politicians just say “its for the kids” to get tax increases. Once the “surplus” revenue is attained, the politicians simply choose to spend the money on things other than education.

  5. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    In response to Don-

    I am looking for a Constitutional Attorney to file in Fed Court which is why I reached out to this Ed Source Blog. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

  6. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    Finally- The Federal Government has a Substantial Interest in Student outcomes in California California education is critical to the entire nation’s future because more than one in eight public school students in the U.S. attends school in California. According to the latest data available from NCES: California had 6.3 million preK-12 students in 2011, and that is projected to increase to almost 7 million by 2023. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.20.asp 54.1% percent were eligible for free/reduced lunch and http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_204.10.asp 23.2 percent were in … Read More

    Finally-
    The Federal Government has a Substantial Interest in Student outcomes in California
    California education is critical to the entire nation’s future because more than one in eight public school students in the U.S. attends school in California.
    According to the latest data available from NCES:

    California had 6.3 million preK-12 students in 2011, and that is projected to increase to almost 7 million by 2023. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.20.asp

    54.1% percent were eligible for free/reduced lunch and http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_204.10.asp

    23.2 percent were in English Language Learner programs http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_204.20.asp

    California’s failure to educate its students will greatly impact how educated the Nation is as a whole; and how well prepared the Nation will be for jobs in the 21 century.

    The Continual Lack Of Adequate Funding Has Resulted In A Notable Decline In Student Performance Across All Demographics.

    See Documentation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja1N1ukm9xeX2PNfZyCS0hMpOSTnYAffRhIo6W4E-54/pub

  7. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    3) A Federal Court has proper jurisdiction to review an individual State’s Education funding laws to ensure that the law bears a rational relationship to a legitimate State Purpose. The formula creates inequities that are not rational and do not fulfill the State’s goal of providing an adequate education to every student. The stated goal of the Local Control Funding Formula is to provide a base level of funding for every student (Base Grant) and … Read More

    3) A Federal Court has proper jurisdiction to review an individual State’s Education funding laws to ensure that the law bears a rational relationship to a legitimate State Purpose.

    The formula creates inequities that are not rational and do not fulfill the State’s goal of providing an adequate education to every student.

    The stated goal of the Local Control Funding Formula is to provide a base level of funding for every student (Base Grant) and then to provide additional funding to students who have high needs such as ELL and socioeconomically disadvantaged (Supplemental Grant and Concentration Grant). However the law does not achieve that result at all. The result is per pupil funding that varies from a low of $6,244 per student to a hight of $177,829 per student. The LCFF intentionally underfunds wealthy suburban school districts which in effect deprives any student who happens to live in such a District of an adequate education irrespective of that students personal wealth or income. Wealth, Race and Ethnicity are suspect classifications.

    The Court in Rodriguez found that while the Texas funding system was not perfect, the system provided a basic education for every child in the State.
    The Texas system also allowed and encouraged local control over how local tax dollars were to be spent.
    Pp. 411 U. S. 44-53
    Unlike the Texas system, California’s tax system is structured such that the California Legislature determines the amount of property taxes used to fund schools. Local school boards do not have authority to raise any revenue for district instructional programs; and as such, individual school districts do not in fact have “local control”. In the Texas System all District per pupil funding was within $100 of each other. The Texas system did provide a basic education to every student and then not only allowed, but encouraged local control for funding above the base.
    Despite it’s title- there is no real “local control” or the ability for Districts within the State of California to provide additional funding to their District without voting to tax themselves twice for the service that the State is already constitutionally obligated to provide.

  8. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    2) A Federal Court has proper jurisdiction to review an individual State’s Education funding laws in cases involving laws that interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights and liberties explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution. Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/1/ at Pp. 411 U. S. 18-44. The California LCFF impermissibly interferes with the "fundamental" right that every child living in the State of California has to a FREE and “Adequate” public education. Education is one of … Read More

    2) A Federal Court has proper jurisdiction to review an individual State’s Education funding laws in cases involving laws that interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights and liberties explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution.
    Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/1/ at Pp. 411 U. S. 18-44.

    The California LCFF impermissibly interferes with the “fundamental” right that every child living in the State of California has to a FREE and “Adequate” public education. Education is one of the most important services performed by the State. Although Education is not within the limited category of rights recognized by Federal Courts Court as guaranteed by the US Constitution, the Supreme Court has held that once a state decides to provide an education to its children, as California has (Article IX of the California Constitution), the provision of such education must be consistent with other federally guaranteed constitutional rights, such as the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection under the law.

    Rodriquez Decision “In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), a unanimous Court recognized that “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.” Id. at 347 U. S. 493. What was said there in the context of racial discrimination has lost none of its vitality with the passage of time:
    “Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our
    Page 411 U. S. 30
    recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”

    To be Constitutional the Base Grant would need to be increased to a sufficient amount to provide every student with an adequate education ($9,500). A law that deprives students of their constitutional right to an adequate education simply because they happen to live in wealthy suburban school Districts defined as Districts that have a higher per capita average income and a low percentage of English Language Learners and/or students from low-income families is unconstitutional under Rodriguez.

    Replies

    • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

      If the state were to choose to eliminate the S&C grants altogether, yet not raise the base grant, would that then make the funding mechanism constitutional?

      • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

        No – the Court stated that the funding had to be adequate to provide every student with a basic education. That is why this case fits Rodriquez so well.

  9. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    Has anyone heard the term "newcomer"? That is a code word for unaccompanied minors who have been quietly placed in Districts all across the United States. Capistrano Unified just welcomed 200 such students who come from many different countries and speak little to no English. We had an LCAP in place which did address as its 5th point special services for ELL and our poor. Magically- with the stroke of a pen - and no … Read More

    Has anyone heard the term “newcomer”? That is a code word for unaccompanied minors who have been quietly placed in Districts all across the United States. Capistrano Unified just welcomed 200 such students who come from many different countries and speak little to no English. We had an LCAP in place which did address as its 5th point special services for ELL and our poor. Magically- with the stroke of a pen – and no public in-put our LCAP has moved services to ELL and the poor to #1- so much for accountability. So much for any hope of an education for 375,000 students who are not classified as ELL or poor. Unfortunately in America today, the rights of children who are legally entitled to a adequate Free public education are deprived of that right. Why should my students rights be trampled to accommodate someone who is not legally entitled to be in this county? Why does my child matter less then another simple because we happen to live in a wealthy area?

  10. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    Let's take that Discrimination one step further- We have established that every student in Capistrano is receiving per pupil funding of $7,002 that is $2,000. less then what is required to pay for the cost of educating a student in California. So every child in CUSD, irrespective of race ethnicity or wealth is being deprived of their constitutional right to an adequate education. If that is not bad enough look at what happens at the District … Read More

    Let’s take that Discrimination one step further-

    We have established that every student in Capistrano is receiving per pupil funding of $7,002 that is $2,000. less then what is required to pay for the cost of educating a student in California. So every child in CUSD, irrespective of race ethnicity or wealth is being deprived of their constitutional right to an adequate education. If that is not bad enough look at what happens at the District level.

    At the District level- the percentage of ELL is 10% and the percentage of poor is 25% so the Capistrano Unified School District is receiving an additional $273 per student to provide additional services to our ELL and Poor which is again insufficient.

    The Local Control Accountability Plan is suppose to show how CUSD has chosen at the local level to distribute the funds it receives. The cost to provide adequate services to ELL and the poor is more than $273 per student. In fact the estimated cost to provide services is almost double. So if the District is forced to spend $12,000 – $14,000 on 25% of its students (ELL and Poor) what does that mean for the remaining 75% of students who must now receive less. It means that the remaining 75% of the students in our District are being funded at less than $5,000 per student simply because they are NOT ELL or poor. That is further discrimination based on wealth, race and ethnicity and the result will have real long term consequences to every student in the Capistrano Unified School District.

    Governor Brown should go to jail for what he is doing to the middle class tax payers who happen to live in wealthy suburban school districts.

    Replies

    • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

      Dawn, I agree with you 100% in principle, although I do not quite understand your assumptions about costs based upon the brief hypothetical in the comment you made above. 84% of LCFF funding pays for the base grant, with 10% to supplemental and 6 to concentration. However, a district could decide to allocate funding in whatever percentages it deems appropriate as long as it doesn't fold supplemental and concentration grants ( S and C) … Read More

      Dawn, I agree with you 100% in principle, although I do not quite understand your assumptions about costs based upon the brief hypothetical in the comment you made above.

      84% of LCFF funding pays for the base grant, with 10% to supplemental and 6 to concentration. However, a district could decide to allocate funding in whatever percentages it deems appropriate as long as it doesn’t fold supplemental and concentration grants ( S and C) into base funding and thus not use targeted funding specifically for targeted students. Are you saying CUSD , conversely, is budgeting the 3 target groups in a manner in excess of the S and C amounts allocated to the district as a whole?

      You are assuming that because it would require double to meet the higher needs of target students your district isspending double on them and commensurately less on the others. You would have to look directly at school budgets to get a real sense it this were true at CUSD. And that is one reason why LCFF should have opted to budget schools directly, IME.

      Many people believe that the state should have a per pupil minimum based upon annual Prop 98 funding and that each district should be required to spend that minimum per pupil, rather than getting 1, 2 or 3 separate grants based upon student characteristics but the ability to spend those grants without regard to meeting a minimum per pupil.

      Margaret Weston of the Public Policy Institute of California weighed in on this issue after the passage of XB 34, 2009 ( I think I have the number correct) when the State flexed most of the Tier III funding (excepting SPED and EIA) and in effect made it functionally the same as Revenue Limit funding. Her point was that Serrano applied to RL funding and that it therefore should be within the Serrano Band to meet the constitutional requirements.

      One could ask why S and C grants and the categorical grants before them (some still exist outside LCFF) are not subject to Serrano and I’ve always wondered if there is a legal rationale for that or it the State has simply overrode the court due to lack of a legal challenge otherwise. That is to say, why do the needs of some students who have been arbitrarily targeted based upon wealth, receive more funding than others? As these needs strip the funding away from the base grant the question looms larger with time. LCFF has instituted a system whereby as long as the number of students in poverty or not speaking English is rising, the rest will have to get by with less. Even if more revenue was raised and more funding was allocated to Prop 98, this weighted student formula would still take from some to pay for others. And to add insult to injury, the formula is very cynical and defeatist because students who might actually benefit from S and C grant funding by attaining academic proficiency or above would still, nevertheless, be eligible for the funding in perpetuity because the formula is means based as though it were welfare. It assumes failure.

      • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

        Don- I am not in the education field so I can only share with you what I know from my District as a parent advocate. I am giving you actual numbers for my District. $7,002 per student. Supplemental Grant $273 per student does not cover what is being spent by the District to provide services to the poor and ELL as is being required by OCDE. So that money is being taken from every students funding … Read More

        Don-

        I am not in the education field so I can only share with you what I know from my District as a parent advocate. I am giving you actual numbers for my District. $7,002 per student. Supplemental Grant $273 per student does not cover what is being spent by the District to provide services to the poor and ELL as is being required by OCDE. So that money is being taken from every students funding of $7,002. So you are correct – as long as both President Obama and Governor Brown keep importing poor ELL into our public education system it will result in a lack of education for everyone. That has already been proven in Capistrano Unified in Math where 22% of ELL are ready for college level math and only 23% of the total populations is ready for college level math- all students are now equally dumb in math.

        CUSD Funding Under the LCFF 2012-13

        Base Grant: $ 6,500 per student (equal for every student in the State).

        Supplemental Grant: $273.00

        Additional funding that is based on the percentage of students in the District that are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, or are in Foster Care.

        English Language Learners in CUSD

        10% of all Students in CUSD are English Language Learners. 81.7% of English Language Learners are socioeconomically disadvantaged:

        Asian: 279 or 5.3%
        Black or African American: 15 or .37%
        Hispanic: 4,466 or 85%
        White not Hispanic: 150 or 2.9%
        Special Education: 15.6% or 816
        Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: 4,265 or 81.7%

        Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students

        24.1% (12,793 students) are Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students

        Source: http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1229223560406/1218998864154/1463621950735616281.pdf Board Agenda #4, Exhibit 4, Slide 3 and 8

        Concentration Grant: -0-

        The Concentration Grant provides additional money for Districts that have “targeted” students that exceed 55% of a Districts student population. Targeted students are: English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, or are in Foster Care.

        CUSD % English Language Learners 10%
        CUSD % Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: 24.1% < than 55% so CUSD does not qualify for any Concentration Grant funds.

        Districts with low percentages of English Language Learners and poor are being funding by the Base Grant, therefore the Base Grant has to be increased to a level that is sufficient to provide an adequate education for all students. The law cannot discriminate against students simply because they happen to live in a wealthy suburban school district.

    • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

      Hi Dawn, not to belabor the point but if schools are expected to correct for all of society's ills, as currently seems to be the case, then that seems justification for basing equality goals on outcome. If, by that measure, affluent students who are funded at only half the rate of their less affluent counterparts still outperform those counterparts (currently that gap is fairly large so correcting it probably won't be addressed by the meager … Read More

      Hi Dawn, not to belabor the point but if schools are expected to correct for all of society’s ills, as currently seems to be the case, then that seems justification for basing equality goals on outcome. If, by that measure, affluent students who are funded at only half the rate of their less affluent counterparts still outperform those counterparts (currently that gap is fairly large so correcting it probably won’t be addressed by the meager re-direction we are seeing during the first few years of LCFF, and maybe not even at full funding) doesn’t that actually mean the discrimination is still going the other, eg ‘traditional’ way, regardless of the very real state funding discrepancy that you highlight?
      How do we balance the desire for equality of outcome with the desire for equality of input? Obviously one way is to reject the notion of equality of outcome altogether.
      Another is to reject the idea that increased spending makes any difference. Unfortunately, because that is based on the premise that different students can make more out of the same resources, it also means talking about ‘efficiency’ (required discussion in resource-constrained systems) invites the suggestion that any money spent on lower-achievers is ‘good after bad’, which is then used to justify even under-funding those groups.
      I am glad you have raised this point. These priorities are almost never discussed outright in the education realm.

      • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

        Navigio - if the State refuses to spend the money needed to provide an "adequate" education for EVERY student then the result will be the complete decimation of the middle class in the United States since California educates 1 in 8 students in the US. As I stated in my response to Don- The Continued Lack of Adequate Funding Has Resulted in a Notable Decline in Student Performance Across all Demographics. Every student will eventually … Read More

        Navigio – if the State refuses to spend the money needed to provide an “adequate” education for EVERY student then the result will be the complete decimation of the middle class in the United States since California educates 1 in 8 students in the US. As I stated in my response to Don- The Continued Lack of Adequate Funding Has Resulted in a Notable Decline in Student Performance Across all Demographics. Every student will eventually be equally uneducated no matter where they started if we continue down the path of redistributing money through our public education system.

        The movement to destroy public education is not coming from parents who simply want a good education for their children, but from academia itself that seeks to use the public education system to engineer a society where everyone is equal. The only potential outcome is equality at the lowest common denominator. We will be the first generation to ensure that our children’s future will be less bright then ours – they will be limited to the same opportunities as poor people who cannot speak english. Is this really what California’s Public Education system would like to see as the outcome?

        • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

          No, it is not what the public education system would like to see as the outcome. Neither is it what state politicians would like to see as the outcome. However, it probably is is a challenge to the status quo of unequal opportunity (as measured by outcome) in the form of a threat. Just like prop 30 was a challenge in the form of a threat (sadly, even then, prop 30 barely passed--so there is … Read More

          No, it is not what the public education system would like to see as the outcome. Neither is it what state politicians would like to see as the outcome. However, it probably is is a challenge to the status quo of unequal opportunity (as measured by outcome) in the form of a threat. Just like prop 30 was a challenge in the form of a threat (sadly, even then, prop 30 barely passed–so there is barely a plurality that believes current funding is even worth maintaining, and that without adequacy as it is).
          It is probably the case that without such a threat our voting populace will be happy to fund education at a level that continues to underfund everyone, with the resulting performance detriment disproportionately placed on the poor. Actually, that may continue to be the case even in spite of the threat as there is a real danger of people who can, choosing against public education altogether.
          Btw, based on estimates you provided earlier, in order for education funding to be ‘adequate’ it would require school spending to go from about 50% of the gf budget to about 75%. Do you think that’s possible?

    • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

      Dawn, a child born and raised in the upper quintile of Americans has a 39% likelihood of being in the top quintile, or 20%, as an adult. A child raised in the bottom quintile has a 6% likelihood. This is more of an inequity and unfairness than what you discuss. We must find ways to have equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is a great principle, but we must live up to it. … Read More

      Dawn, a child born and raised in the upper quintile of Americans has a 39% likelihood of being in the top quintile, or 20%, as an adult. A child raised in the bottom quintile has a 6% likelihood. This is more of an inequity and unfairness than what you discuss. We must find ways to have equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is a great principle, but we must live up to it. All you mention is not reversing inequality of opportunity. Maybe an unfairness is happening now, but look at all the well off have done to merit this unfairness. The well off set salaries and taxes, and decided 95 of every $100 since 2008 in GDP growth should go to 1% of taxpayers, and most of the rest to those very close to that level. They have blocked minimum wage increases. They have increased prison spending tremendously and reduced spending on public schools and public universities. They have instituted a policy where the public housing is all in a certain area, rather than spread out equally as is done in many European and Asian nations, so we have very segregated suburbs. We need integration, and equal opportunity. These underfunded schools you complain of have Asian kids who are thriving. I agree funding should be more equal, but we need to create more equal opportunity and right now we don’t have that. Maybe you truly desire equal opportunity but many in rich suburban districts move there so their kids won’t go to school with poor kids, black and brown kids, in some cases even Asian kids. Many want unequal opportunity and a status quo to remain. If we don’t have more class mobility eventually there will be communism or socialism. The only way capitalism works is for everyone to feel they have an equal chance. If the top 5th has over 6 times the odds of making the top 5th as the bottom 5th, we have a caste system. When you talk of leaving the public system, you talk of exacerbating this problem. Why not go to the local school, volunteer, donate, try to help kids with less fortune than your own?

      • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

        Floyd- All students in my District are living proof that the idea of creating equal opportunity does not work for anyone. You can not run a District of 53,000 students on fundraising, our schools are overrun with "volunteers". I have decided to really help all the kids in my District by suing the State of California in Federal Court because the new LCFF violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States … Read More

        Floyd-

        All students in my District are living proof that the idea of creating equal opportunity does not work for anyone. You can not run a District of 53,000 students on fundraising, our schools are overrun with “volunteers”. I have decided to really help all the kids in my District by suing the State of California in Federal Court because the new LCFF violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

        The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees every citizen (irrespective of wealth, race or ethnicity) equal protection under the law and gives Federal Courts jurisdiction to review State laws that discriminate against an individual because of wealth, race or ethnicity using strict judicial scrutiny.

        I volunteer my time advocating for changing this law. If I am successful it will benefit every students equally.

        • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

          Although I applaud your willingness to take on the state in court, wouldn’t a lawsuit challenging adequacy be the only way to guarantee a benefit for all students equally? Otherwise, the ‘correction’ would just be taking from some and giving to others.

          • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

            Aren’t there winners and losers if you change the funding? It’s probably a good thing anyways as the money isn’t achieving results. However, we have to look at integration and ways to equalize opportunity.

          • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

            Yes- this is an adequacy suit which would force the State to increase the base grant to an amount that is sufficient to provide every student with an "Adequate" education. Then if the State wants to provide additional funding for high needs students they would do so by altering the percentages of the supplemental grant and the concentration grant. What the State cannot do is deprive students of an adequate education based solely on where … Read More

            Yes- this is an adequacy suit which would force the State to increase the base grant to an amount that is sufficient to provide every student with an “Adequate” education. Then if the State wants to provide additional funding for high needs students they would do so by altering the percentages of the supplemental grant and the concentration grant.

            What the State cannot do is deprive students of an adequate education based solely on where they happen to live irrespective of that students wealth, race or ethnicity because that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

            Forcing California (now 50th in the nation in per pupil funding) to meet its constitutional obligations will only mean that California will have to make other choices about how to spend surplus revenue. Maybe the State needs to rethink the benefit of importing more people to take care of unless it finds a way to increase revenues.

            It is unfortunate that students have to sue the State to force our representatives to fulfill their constitutional obligations. But that is the only recourse students have left.

          • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

            The irony of the current funding situation is that civil rights advocates litigated Serrano One because the local tax inequities across the state led to disparities in education funding that did not comport with the California Constitution for equal opportunity and, in their minds, the 14th Amendment and equal protection, but civil rights advocates have fought successfully for UNequal education funding in LCFF. It's funny how unequal seems pretty good … Read More

            The irony of the current funding situation is that civil rights advocates litigated Serrano One because the local tax inequities across the state led to disparities in education funding that did not comport with the California Constitution for equal opportunity and, in their minds, the 14th Amendment and equal protection, but civil rights advocates have fought successfully for UNequal education funding in LCFF. It’s funny how unequal seems pretty good when you’re on the receiving end. Pre-Serrano the disparate situation was the indirect result of tax revenues, whereas with LCFF the disparate situation is the direct result of education finance policy- not to conclude that the end result pre-Serrano wasn’t inequitable.

            In Serrano II, after the USSC struck down Rodriguez in Texas, which was similar to Serrano, as basically a state issue, the CSC reaffirmed the California Constitution as protector of the students, irregardless of the US Constitution. Since disparity in funding is now in our day institutionalized, it seems to me in my nonlegal mind that the premise by which Serrano II bolstered itself against the precedent of Rodriguez which could undermine it, that of state protection, is now moot since any vestiges of Serrano have long gone. Serrano’d demise is no longer de jure, but de facto.

            Dawn, since the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Serrano (Rodriguez) it seems that you would be better off litigating to uphold Serrano unless you intend to undo Rodriguez and show that education is a fundamental right under the US Constitution.

            i’d very much like to do whatever I can to help you.

          • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

            San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, defined when it would be appropriate for a Federal Court to review an individual State’s Education Funding System to determine the constitutionality of that system. Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/1/ In a nut shell- here is the argument for bringing an adequacy suit in Federal Court seeking emergency relief- 1) A Federal Court has proper jurisdiction to review an individual State’s Education funding laws under standards … Read More

            San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, defined when it would be appropriate for a Federal Court to review an individual State’s Education Funding System to determine the constitutionality of that system.
            Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/1/

            In a nut shell- here is the argument for bringing an adequacy suit in Federal Court seeking emergency relief-

            1) A Federal Court has proper jurisdiction to review an individual State’s Education funding laws under standards of strict judicial scrutiny, in cases involving laws that operate to the disadvantage of suspect classes or interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights and liberties explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution. Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/1/ at Pp. 411 U. S. 18-44.

            California’s LCFF determines funding based solely on wealth, race and ethnicity of students- all suspect classifications. Unlike the Texas System which the Court held provided sufficient funding for every student to have a basic education, the California system intentionally underfunds students in wealthy suburban school districts irrespective of an individual students personal income.

            In Rodriguez the Court specifically stated a law would be determined to Discriminate on the basis of wealth if all students who, irrespective of their personal incomes, happen to reside in a relatively poor (or in this case, a relatively wealthy District).

          • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

            Don, this is no huge surprise. Those who fought against open discrimination against blacks (Duke didn’t allow any blacks until the ’60s, and Columbia didn’t allow women until 1983-1984) were later those who were for affirmative action, which is a form of discrimination but one which can be justified by historical inequality, in their view.

          • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

            Did the court also say wealthy? Traditionally, suspect class has required some tie-in with previous behavior, including historical discrimination. At one point there was not agreement in the Supreme Court on whether whites could be considered a suspect class. I expect a similar argument could be made for the wealthy. It’s possible this had changed though. Was overturning affirmative action also based on this concept?

          • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

            The court said a State Funding System that deprives a student of their constitutional right to a free and adequate education based solely on where a student lives, irrespective of the individual students personal wealth would be found to be an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. That is what LCFF does. It deprives every student that lives in a wealthy school district of an adequate education whether they are … Read More

            The court said a State Funding System that deprives a student of their constitutional right to a free and adequate education based solely on where a student lives, irrespective of the individual students personal wealth would be found to be an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. That is what LCFF does. It deprives every student that lives in a wealthy school district of an adequate education whether they are poor or English Language Learners.

            If you are saying the formula is constitutional because the Base Grant is the same for everyone and that adequacy means equal opportunity the law still fails as Rodriquez predicted because the law deprives the poor and ELL in our District of adequate funding and any additional funding simply because they happen to live in a wealthy suburban school District.

            So the law cares not about equalizing opportunities, but redistributing wealth from a “wealthy area” to a poor area.

            WOW- I guess the poor and ELL in my District deserve less then the poor and ELL everywhere else in the United States.

            Maybe the law was written to punish anyone who lives in a conservative part of California rather than to help poor students and ELL’s? Food for thought.

          • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

            Dawn, you have a point. You have to look at macro areas, will teachers commute. If you have a wealthy suburb near poorer areas, it is easier than if there are none nearby. However, it's ideal for teachers to be a part of the community. Both sides play that game. All our military bases were lost because we voted too liberally. The key fact is every child deserves equal … Read More

            Dawn, you have a point. You have to look at macro areas, will teachers commute. If you have a wealthy suburb near poorer areas, it is easier than if there are none nearby. However, it’s ideal for teachers to be a part of the community. Both sides play that game. All our military bases were lost because we voted too liberally. The key fact is every child deserves equal opportunity, whether the child of a single mother or illiterate illegal immigrants or rich and famous people like Matt Damon, who talk up public schools then avoid them. All kids deserve a chance.

          • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

            Generally speaking, yes, even poor/ell/foster are treated differently in wealthy areas than poor areas via the concentration grant. Again, this is due to an assumption that the concentration of poverty and language isolation, etc, has a disproportionately negative impact on those students who live where it is more the norm.

          • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

            You Education people can dance all around the fact that the system that is currently in place makes it almost impossible for any child in my WEALTHY school district to succeed in life. The United states Constitution prohibits California from denying an adequate education to my child simply because they live in a wealthy area. PERIOD.

  11. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    In Response to Navigio who stated "The base grant is equal. So in terms of inadequacy, there is no discrimination there. Our state is equally inadequate." That is not a true statement. The State of California did a study a few years back and determined what it actually costs to provide an adequate education to a student in California. Source: http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/ca/CA-AIR-3-07.pdf at xiii Calculated Per Pupil Costs, including Base Costs with Special Needs Weightings are as … Read More

    In Response to Navigio who stated “The base grant is equal. So in terms of inadequacy, there is no discrimination there. Our state is equally inadequate.”

    That is not a true statement.

    The State of California did a study a few years back and determined what it actually costs to provide an adequate education to a student in California. Source: http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/ca/CA-AIR-3-07.pdf at xiii

    Calculated Per Pupil Costs, including Base Costs with Special Needs Weightings are as follows:

    Average: $11,094 – $12,365
    Urban: $11,508 – $12,718 *CUSD
    Suburban: $10,726 – $12,077
    Towns: $ 8,932 – $ 9,896
    Rural: $10,615 – $11,881

    California is depriving every student who receives less than $9,000 in per pupil funding of an adequate education.

    To be constitutional under the Supreme Court Case San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/1/ the States base grant must be sufficient to provide an adequate education for every student. Then you can give additional funding to high needs students such as ELL and the poor.

    The LCFF discriminates based on wealth because it deprives EVERY student (ELL and the poor) that happens to live in a wealth suburban school District of their right to an adequate FREE Public Education irrespective of the individual students personal income. Discrimination based on wealth is a violation of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. The Governor’s new law would be unconstitutional under Rodriguez.

    Replies

    • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

      If you do it Statewide you discriminate against the more expensive areas, where property taxes are higher and everything costs more. I'm not saying they deserve better teaching due to their income, but if there is no adjustment, if you pay a teacher in San Francisco, San Jose, Orange County, Marin, etc. the same as in Redding, Manteca, Fresno, Sacramento, San Bernadino, Bakersfield and other cheap areas, you are getting a much higher quality … Read More

      If you do it Statewide you discriminate against the more expensive areas, where property taxes are higher and everything costs more. I’m not saying they deserve better teaching due to their income, but if there is no adjustment, if you pay a teacher in San Francisco, San Jose, Orange County, Marin, etc. the same as in Redding, Manteca, Fresno, Sacramento, San Bernadino, Bakersfield and other cheap areas, you are getting a much higher quality person in the rural areas because they can live better on a lower salary.

      • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

        In Response to Floyed Floyd- I think you are confused. The State legislature determines how much property tax revenue we get back to fund education. There is no real local control. Floyd stated "Perhaps some districts are implementing it well, and if so those implementing it badly should emulate those doing well." May I ask who is going to make Districts do that? I live in a District that raises employee compensation and then figures out how to balance … Read More

        In Response to Floyed

        Floyd- I think you are confused. The State legislature determines how much property tax revenue we get back to fund education. There is no real local control.

        Floyd stated “Perhaps some districts are implementing it well, and if so those implementing it badly should emulate those doing well.”

        May I ask who is going to make Districts do that?

        I live in a District that raises employee compensation and then figures out how to balance the budget.

        In 2021 we will have 180 furlough days an the highest paid teachers in the nation. SO much for students rights.

  12. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    In Response to Gary who Stated: "The state can’t be “obligated” to pay for services that aren’t supported by the tax revenues it collects." The California Constitution requires the State to fund an adequate education for EVERY student. That means that money is spent on that before the State "chooses" to create new programs or services. Gary you seem to overlook the fact that the State of California has it's highest revenues of all times at … Read More

    In Response to Gary who Stated: “The state can’t be “obligated” to pay for services that aren’t supported by the tax revenues it collects.”

    The California Constitution requires the State to fund an adequate education for EVERY student. That means that money is spent on that before the State “chooses” to create new programs or services. Gary you seem to overlook the fact that the State of California has it’s highest revenues of all times at $107 billion. It is absolutely criminal that the State continues to ignore its constitutional obligation to its students so that it can redistribute wealth and begin new programs that it does not have a constitutional obligation to provide.

    Replies

    • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

      Dawn: You know all kids do not arrive at the school house door equally prepared succeed. Many students require some "redistribution" in order to provide for housing, healthcare and nutrition needs. Even with the redistribution CA ranks only "less-than-adequate" in terms of providing for its neediest children. Children spend 87% of their waking hours in home and community between the K-12 years and 13% in school. Schools can't possibly make up for the deficits living in … Read More

      Dawn:

      You know all kids do not arrive at the school house door equally prepared succeed. Many students require some “redistribution” in order to provide for housing, healthcare and nutrition needs. Even with the redistribution CA ranks only “less-than-adequate” in terms of providing for its neediest children. Children spend 87% of their waking hours in home and community between the K-12 years and 13% in school. Schools can’t possibly make up for the deficits living in poverty condition create for children. I guess there is a “good Samaritan” aspect to progressive politics that doesn’t resonate with some.

      As I said, there have been number of “adequacy” lawsuits brought by various parties in recent years and none of them have gone very far in our courts. So, there’s your “constitutional” question as far as the judicial system is concerned. I don’t agree with a number of court decisions either.

      As far as your point about “good faith bargaining,” that is a question between the two parties involved in the contract” district management & the union.

      CA’s revenue stream can only be evaluated in relation to its burden of expenses. In a huge state with near the highest cost-of-living and cost-of-providing services in the nation the revenue stream is not adequate.

      I have suggested for quite some time that CA does not provide adequate school funding and does not meet its obligations. It also has other obligations and can’t meet those either. Increased revenue is the only solution.

      • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

        Gary, I agree with you that funding is inadequate. 95% of the GDP increase since 2008 went to the top 1% and we should raise their taxes enough to bring them back to their 2008 level, as it was corruption for them to give themselves that high of a percentage of GDP growth after a recession that was a threat to our economy, very wrong. Every penny of that should be confiscated in … Read More

        Gary, I agree with you that funding is inadequate. 95% of the GDP increase since 2008 went to the top 1% and we should raise their taxes enough to bring them back to their 2008 level, as it was corruption for them to give themselves that high of a percentage of GDP growth after a recession that was a threat to our economy, very wrong. Every penny of that should be confiscated in taxes so they learn never to be so selfish and unfair again as they certainly didn’t cause 95% of the economic growth and much came from their short-sighted decision to allow offshoring of jobs and fight a minimum wage increase.

        However, kids do do well in poverty, and some groups do very well. Asian Americans, Nigerians, Cubans, Lebanese, Persian/Iranian Americans, Russians. Those here get it in their head that the system has it against them but those who immigrate and keep an open mind as to their ability to succeed generally do.

        I know parenting isn’t directly the fault of teachers, but I have noticed when I talk of this, many teachers don’t praise such parenting and dedication. They talk about balance, or stress. When 8 kids at my children’s middle school were given an award for getting As in very class for 6 semesters, 3 years, I heard one parent say what a great feat that was and then heard 10 parents and teachers in the back suddenly start talking about the 9 intelligences theory, which has never been proven and is always brought up with timing to minimize the achievements of traditional intelligence. They predicted kids would burn out, even though no one has ever proven this theory and kids who do better at every stage of education on average do best at the next. No study has every shown high achievers burn out at the next level. Some individuals do, but no study has shown a tendency and that’s just true of all things, some do everything, but stats show they do better.

        I’ve had teachers say don’t study too hard, you might burn out. They often talk of balance. Some are on the right track, but some are not.

        I do think teachers could do more and should read ‘The Triple Package’ and actively encourage parents of poor kids to turn off the TV. Obama said “you’re never so poor all you can do is turn on the TV when it’s time to do homework with your kids.” But this excuse is prevalent among the far left. And if it’s OK to call in sick when you aren’t or to not study with your kids or take them to a free library because you’re poor, it is also morally OK to not vote if you feel tired or apathetic or need to work. We’ve made it easier and easier to vote and voter turnout has dropped, because there is no stigma to not voting anymore, just like there is no stigma for men to abandon their children and such men remarry at rates higher than single men. That laziness on voting just caused much more poverty for them as we lost the midterms.

        • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

          Gary, if you analyze the last election you will see. The poor have no one to blame but themselves for not voting in large numbers. They caused policies which will cost them much money and cause them to be poor in the future. Obama will get nothing done so people could watch one TV show or sleep more. I'm sure you'll continue to complain that people are poor, but ask them … Read More

          Gary, if you analyze the last election you will see. The poor have no one to blame but themselves for not voting in large numbers. They caused policies which will cost them much money and cause them to be poor in the future. Obama will get nothing done so people could watch one TV show or sleep more. I’m sure you’ll continue to complain that people are poor, but ask them to help themselves. I support redistributive policies, but the Democrats lost. Nothing redistributive will happen for at least 2 years because people didn’t bother to vote. Turnout among all groups in poverty was horrible. When turnout is low, when it’s morally OK to not even vote, the rich win, and the Republicans win. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Hope the poor enjoyed that extra show, because in the case of minimum wage, it will cost them up to $6,000 much needed dollars a year, money which could have pulled them out of poverty.

      • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

        In response to Gary who stated: "You know all kids do not arrive at the school house door equally prepared succeed." That is true- but we have stolen so much from all the children in my district that even the students that should be succeeding (because they come from middle class families who have great parental support and money for extras) are now being pulled down to the performance level of English Language Learners and the … Read More

        In response to Gary who stated: “You know all kids do not arrive at the school house door equally prepared succeed.”

        That is true- but we have stolen so much from all the children in my district that even the students that should be succeeding (because they come from middle class families who have great parental support and money for extras) are now being pulled down to the performance level of English Language Learners and the Poor. The overwhelming majority of students in the Capistrano Unified School District are not doing as well as they should because we have lacked adequate funding for so long. It is a pretty sad statement when only 23% of the Students graduating from CUSD are ready for College level courses in Mathematics. 22% of English Language Learners are prepared for college level course-work in Mathematics. We have made everyone equally dumb by failing to provide adequate funding for students in my District. And by the way- Capistrano Unified School District always likes to represent itself as the #1 large school district in the State.

        Capistrano Unified is the second largest school district in Orange County and serves 52,985 students that live in the following “affluent” communities:

        Median Household Income of Districts residents

        State of California: $61,400
        Orange County: $75,566
        Aliso Viejo: $98,515
        Cota de Caza: $169,176
        Dana Point: $80,938
        Ladera Ranch: $131,893
        Laguna Niguel: $100,589
        Las Flores: $128,301
        Mission Viejo: $96,088
        Rancho Santa Margarita: $102,975
        San Clemente: $87,184
        San Juan Capistrano: $75,356
        Source: Source: United States Census Bureau http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html

        Less than 25% of our students are ELL or Socioeconomically disadvantaged.

        But the fact remains that student performance will accelerate its decline because funding of $7,002 per student does not provide any services for students after you pay employees. California’s own study showed that we should be receiving between $11,508 – $12,718 per student.

        I feel very strongly that an adequacy suit in Federal Court would be successful and I am actively looking for someone to help represent the 52,000 students in our DIstrict.

        • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

          It isn’t just your district, Dawn. It’s all students throughout California whose constitutional right to equal opportunity has been abridged by a state financial system structured to spend more on some students than others solely based on socio-economic status. Because we have three times the average rate of poverty we have to lower base grant below that which is a bare minimum for sufficiency.

          • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

            As of a handful of years ago, low poverty schools ( less than 35% f&r ) raised on average about $100k in donations. High poverty ( greater than 65% f&r ) less than $5k. LCFF is partially a recognition of the 'abilty' for better-off communities to make up for what the state can't cover. And trust me, they will cover it or leave the system. This is probably the only realistic way to get anywhere … Read More

            As of a handful of years ago, low poverty schools ( less than 35% f&r ) raised on average about $100k in donations. High poverty ( greater than 65% f&r ) less than $5k.
            LCFF is partially a recognition of the ‘abilty’ for better-off communities to make up for what the state can’t cover. And trust me, they will cover it or leave the system. This is probably the only realistic way to get anywhere near adequacy for any significant portion of our students. Of course the short end of the stick won’t like it, just as the other short end hasn’t liked it in the past. I guess continuing the alternative of providing equality of inadeqacy (at least for the communities that can’t cover the gap) is also a possible approach…

          • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

            I'm not sure I get that math,Navigio. If your talking about a middle size high school of 2000 hat raises $500 per pupil that's a million bucks to buy about 12 -14 FTEs. If they raise $50 per student that's 100K (your number) for one plus FTE. Few schools in SF have less than 50% F and R and none will raise $500 per student. One teacher ain't going to cut it … Read More

            I’m not sure I get that math,Navigio. If your talking about a middle size high school of 2000 hat raises $500 per pupil that’s a million bucks to buy about 12 -14 FTEs. If they raise $50 per student that’s 100K (your number) for one plus FTE. Few schools in SF have less than 50% F and R and none will raise $500 per student. One teacher ain’t going to cut it so I have to pay for private school in SF. That’s 40K all said and done.

            Also, here in SF, it is very tricky to buy teachers with private dollars – easier to buy stuff than employees. On top of that, the liberals talk about making all donations ONLY districtwide, which would void any private attempt to do an end run.

            Then there’s the fact that all the compensatory education funding here has done nothing to end the achievement gap which is the biggest in California and that is despite the big efforts of the Superintendent Zones and the $45M SIG grant on top of the extra comp ed and Weighted Student Formula benefits . Every subgroup in SFUSD does worse than the state average excepts for whites. The ONLY reason why SFUSD appears to be an outperforming is because the Asian population is 4 times average so its skews the whole picture of API.

            Compensatory education is a bottomless pit that has never shown to provide any benefit for student achievement.

          • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

            Even the ACLU recognized that you cannot make up the difference between what the State of California spends per pupil and what it costs to educate a student with fundraising dollars. In the Capistrano Unified School District all fundraising has done is allowed a greater and greater percentage of CUSD's budget to be spent on salaries, pensions and benefits; with greater and greater reliance on fundraising to pay for everything else. That is how our … Read More

            Even the ACLU recognized that you cannot make up the difference between what the State of California spends per pupil and what it costs to educate a student with fundraising dollars.

            In the Capistrano Unified School District all fundraising has done is allowed a greater and greater percentage of CUSD’s budget to be spent on salaries, pensions and benefits; with greater and greater reliance on fundraising to pay for everything else. That is how our District has been able to cut $150 million from its budget, while Teachers have seen a 1.2% reduction in their Salary Schedule. I would like to add that since there is really no accountability with the so called local control, the first thing Capistrano did with its local control money was to restore the 1.2% salary schedule then it balanced its budget with 3 furlough days and a class size increase of 1.5 students across all grades.

            The Statement “LCFF is partially a recognition of the ‘abilty’ for better-off communities to make up for what the state can’t cover” is incorrect – the State “CAN” cover – but chooses not to and it is time for the people of California to stop the State from using our children to raise tax revenue and then deny them a basic education.

            Things are changing- while local school Districts cannot “raise tuition” like the UC System taxpayers are starting to understand the game that is played and I don’t think the middle class will allow that to continue. They are walking out of California and what California will have left is a small number of uber rich and masses of uneducated poor.

          • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

            Don, the point was not a math exercise, rather to show the relative willingness to cover the gap. Education is a competition after all and those who can will outspend those who cant in that competition. There was an interesting study about this a couple years ago where it showed not only were the affluent spending more money but they were getting more for their educational dollar. :-/ And if more money towards adequacy doesnt matter, … Read More

            Don, the point was not a math exercise, rather to show the relative willingness to cover the gap. Education is a competition after all and those who can will outspend those who cant in that competition. There was an interesting study about this a couple years ago where it showed not only were the affluent spending more money but they were getting more for their educational dollar. :-/

            And if more money towards adequacy doesnt matter, then I guess Dawn’s point is moot then, huh? If it doesnt help the poor then it doesnt help the rich either, right?

            Dawn, fair points. But I dont think the state can cover given its (our) current obligations. Firstly, there is no pot of gold in administrator’s salaries. I think charter schools help make that point. And while teacher obligations could be looked at as the single largest block of state education funding, I dont see how we can do what we think is going to attract good (or better depending on your viewpoint) teachers by cutting their compensation (the unfunded liability mantra is a political game so I wont even bother with that. It may be an issue someday (or not), but its not a real barrier to how we fund education today).
            Perhaps most importantly is to look at school staffing. My guess is that is really where we could do most to improve education. This not only means (for me) over-staffing teachers, but having additional school clerical and administration, and more importantly, counselors, psychologists, librarians, technology people, etc. Those things all mean real and significant increases in what we do today (and many of those are what is covered by parent fundraising). This is not even to mention technology (schools in our district are buying their own computers because they cant wait on the state funding, for example). I could go on and on. In short, the idea that the state “can” has all sorts of assumptions built into it that I dont think are anywhere near realistic unless we want to make HUGE changes elsewhere. IMHO, anwyay.

          • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

            Navigio, If you're talking about an informal system in which the state throws the public school middle class a bone with the tacit expectation that parents will cover the difference between the dwindling base grant and what is sufficient to properly educate students to the level of middle class expectations, I think there's very little chance of that happening - of families donating thousands of dollars yearly (if that's what you mean) - … Read More

            Navigio, If you’re talking about an informal system in which the state throws the public school middle class a bone with the tacit expectation that parents will cover the difference between the dwindling base grant and what is sufficient to properly educate students to the level of middle class expectations, I think there’s very little chance of that happening – of families donating thousands of dollars yearly (if that’s what you mean) – except in some basic aid districts, not all, where incomes are much higher. Even if they did donate those amounts, they would still be stuck inside a system that doesn’t allow much choice in the use of the funding. When you personally fund it, why should you have to then use the money to comply with Ed Code? Basically, Navigio, yo’re talking about pushing the middle class out of ps education.

            IMHO, the importance of education to the family will result in ever more families opting out for either charter schools that stretch dollars and more academic leeway, private schools or another state altogether – a state with higher education funding – a state that didn’t give away the bank to government employee pensions on the backs of students and their constitutional rights.

            Manuel, I didn’t quite understand your comment. If students opt out of SBAC, how would that require test design and development to change? Those students simply have to be reported outside the scope of the results. I agree as does most of the state with your inferred point that NCLB, not PSAA, failed, not in the sense that accountability is not in its own right invalid in the public schools, but for the reason that no scalable solutions have succeeded in making the academic accountability of much use. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be in the future or that there haven’t been some examples of successful turnaround. I think LCFF is an attempt to answer that question by letting each district develop it own means towards compensatory education rather than being stuck in the prescribed categorical programs of the past. Now the Feds need to drop Program Improvement.

            Just to exemplify my point about no scalable solutions, SFUSD is well down the road to providing large scale S and C type funding to troubled schools. Though many people report good things happening at these schools, most of them remain mired in far below basic scores as of 2013. The change of the character of API may lift those numbers, though I’m not convinced that I want to send my child to a school just because it might have decent school climate and more counselors, if not decent academic standing. Which is to say that though the academic results of massive spending has been incremental at best, it wasn’t all bad news. Does it warrant robbing the base grant though?

            Floyd, if it takes one or perhaps two years of delay of API and student reporting to complete local Common Core implementation in the meantime, so be it. The alternative of releasing bad data would be a disaster.

          • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

            The info won't be totally useless. Better students will tend to get more questions right. They put a lot of time into designing it. It's not a disaster. It's better to get some info now and improve it next year. It is valuable to have this information. 2 years is too long, and it is their fault they didn't get their act together. They should have been working … Read More

            The info won’t be totally useless. Better students will tend to get more questions right. They put a lot of time into designing it. It’s not a disaster. It’s better to get some info now and improve it next year. It is valuable to have this information. 2 years is too long, and it is their fault they didn’t get their act together. They should have been working overtime to make this work. The bureaucrats were dragging their feet and in some cases intentionally resisting implementation, which is morally wrong.

            With 65% of kids in public schools disadvantaged economically and 92% of California kids in public schools, we need to get more middle class people into these schools. They got rid of honors in several schools in San Francisco because Sandra Fewer thought the plan was racist. Parents are already mumbling about it being too easy. Seriously, are private schools giving kickbacks to board members to get them to do anything they can to push those you should want in public schools into private schools? It seems that way. The lottery and now honors? It’s insane. People with money have options. Those without will be there anyways. They obsess over the people who have no options and don’t focus at all on those who do have options and often leave. Not only that, those they give a lot to for the most part don’t appreciate it and realize how much other people have sacrificed for them to help them have a shot, but then they don’t study hard to say thank you for all the attention and sacrifice. It’s a shame.

          • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

            "Basically, Navigio, yo’re talking about pushing the middle class out of ps education." Well, I was describing what the politicians are doing, but yes, that seems to be the goal, just as you appear to believe the same thing: "...will result in ever more families opting out for either charter schools that stretch dollars and more academic leeway, private schools or another state altogether" Note Dawn mentioning moving to private school. Btw, its arguable that releasing data wouldnt … Read More

            Basically, Navigio, yo’re talking about pushing the middle class out of ps education.

            Well, I was describing what the politicians are doing, but yes, that seems to be the goal, just as you appear to believe the same thing:

            …will result in ever more families opting out for either charter schools that stretch dollars and more academic leeway, private schools or another state altogether

            Note Dawn mentioning moving to private school.

            Btw, its arguable that releasing data wouldnt be any more ‘bad’ than what we had under the old system, with proficiency rates being manipulated by student readiness (eg late algebra penalty), CMA API manipulation, math proficiency rates having extremely different meanings (50% proficiency from a school that mostly take algebra in 7th grade vs 50% proficiency from a school that mostly doesnt take it till 9th grade). And then an API that ‘distills’ all this ‘data’ into a single number, based on which, people move schools or leave public education altogether. Note, you dont even need the API. Proficiency rates are still part of AYP, and those goals are 100% already. So isnt the question of valid data kind of moot? I actually would love to have some kind of measure of how well or badly my district is implementing common core. The SBAC results it seems would represent virtually nothing more than that.

          • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

            Perhaps some districts are implementing it well, and if so those implementing it badly should emulate those doing well. The scores would show us who the leader is, who we should follow, just like the scores show that if all other parents followed Asian parenting methods, we'd have far less ignorance, voter apathy, poverty, crime, and homelessness. Testing shows there are leaders and laggards. So your district is implementing it poorly. … Read More

            Perhaps some districts are implementing it well, and if so those implementing it badly should emulate those doing well. The scores would show us who the leader is, who we should follow, just like the scores show that if all other parents followed Asian parenting methods, we’d have far less ignorance, voter apathy, poverty, crime, and homelessness. Testing shows there are leaders and laggards. So your district is implementing it poorly. Laggards can follow leaders, or ignore them, but following leads to success.

  13. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    Gavin- I am just a parent – but from my perspective – you cannot squeeze much more money from me- I cannot pay three times for a service that the State is suppose to pay for. Let me give you an example away from education. I live in San Clemente right across the street from the California State Park. I pay my taxes which should open the State parks for everyone. (Remember the scandal – the State Parks … Read More

    Gavin-

    I am just a parent – but from my perspective – you cannot squeeze much more money from me- I cannot pay three times for a service that the State is suppose to pay for.

    Let me give you an example away from education.

    I live in San Clemente right across the street from the California State Park. I pay my taxes which should open the State parks for everyone. (Remember the scandal – the State Parks had a big surplus) yet I have to buy a State Park Pass for $195 per year to walk my dog across the street from my home. AND sadder for me- I had to buy three this year because one was lost- one was stolen out of my car. And ever sadder for me is that now people park in front of my home and leave their cars for 3 and 4 days at a time because they don;t want to pay the $20 per day extra car parking fee.

    So please explain again why I am to pay the highest taxes in the nation and then pay fees (which are essentially another tax) to get the service that the State is already obligated to pay for.

    My District just accepted 200 “New Comers” that would be “unaccompanied minors” who walked across the borders ILLEGALLY. There needs have just been placed at the #1 spot on the LCAP. So should I just tell my child that they are not as important as these “NEW COMERS”?

  14. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    Regarding Prop 30- I actually filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission because in our District every mention of the Districts budget was framed in the context of the Passage or Failure of Prop 30. The District failed to mention Molly Mungers tax which was earmarked for the classroom and not the General Fund. Had every school district PTA and the Teachers Union mentioned both taxes and their effect on the District's budget, Prop … Read More

    Regarding Prop 30-

    I actually filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission because in our District every mention of the Districts budget was framed in the context of the Passage or Failure of Prop 30. The District failed to mention Molly Mungers tax which was earmarked for the classroom and not the General Fund. Had every school district PTA and the Teachers Union mentioned both taxes and their effect on the District’s budget, Prop 30 would never have passed. I was deeply troubled by the District’s advocating for the Passage of a single proposition especially when they used taxpayer resources to do so and to send home information in student pack packs. So Gary- Parents in my District were told that we would have 18 furlough days if we did not vote to pass Prop 30.

    Replies

    • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

      Your district definitely should NOT have been using any district resources to advocate for a political initiative of any kind, as you know. I assume the outcome of your complaint is still pending. And it's likely to be pending for good long time. What are the possible outcomes? Probably little more than a slap on the hand, if anything at all. Dawn, the state has been taken over by a radical progressive legislature for … Read More

      Your district definitely should NOT have been using any district resources to advocate for a political initiative of any kind, as you know. I assume the outcome of your complaint is still pending. And it’s likely to be pending for good long time. What are the possible outcomes? Probably little more than a slap on the hand, if anything at all.

      Dawn, the state has been taken over by a radical progressive legislature for some years now and it is determined to run an ideological government that has no link to outcomes. While most of the country is moving away from Obama’s failed social vision for America, true to his style, here we double down on failure with programs with have no compliance mechanisms (LCFF) of any worth and give districts carte blanche with the taxpayer’s dollar unless they are dollars earmarked for special interest groups. Just look at the national School Improvement Grants, ultimately worth $5.5B. They were a massive failure, especially given the windfall funding. Do we ever hear anything about them? No, and for good reason. They turned out to be little more than an ARRA jobs program. But SIG speaks to the efficacy of pouring money into what are basically social problems as they effect student outcome.

      If my kids were not already well down the line, I would not consider public school in this state. Interestingly, the financial system (LCFF) and many of the state mandates like Restorative Practices or suspension bans are giving the charter industry tremendous impetus for growth. Therefore, look for the legislature to come to loggerheads with Brown over this issue as it tries to choke off charter industry growth. I believe Brown will no longer toe the line of the union in the next and last four years and he will move closer to the charter industry which is personally close to his heart.

      If there is any chance of your “parent perspective”, it would have to be either from a massive and unlikely change of political leadership or, more likely, a judicial ruling in your favor. Obviously, both are years away if ever, perhaps only to come to pass after the total meltdown of this state.

      • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

        Correction: RP is not a mandate

        • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

          Unfortunately Don- I agree with everything you said and this will be my 7th graders last year in the Capistrano Unified School District. My son is in Private School at $25,000 per year so I was trying to wait till he was done - one more year because I truly do not have $50,000 per year for tuition. That is why it was my hope that I could have help filing in Federal Court and … Read More

          Unfortunately Don-

          I agree with everything you said and this will be my 7th graders last year in the Capistrano Unified School District. My son is in Private School at $25,000 per year so I was trying to wait till he was done – one more year because I truly do not have $50,000 per year for tuition. That is why it was my hope that I could have help filing in Federal Court and ask for emergency injunctive relief.

          Re: FPPC They did not want to touch it. Just as the District Attorney does not want to touch the lack of compliance with Government and Education Codes. In June my District passed a budget that increased compensation for teachers – eliminated 3 instructional furlough days and decreased class sizes- How do you do that without entering into a new contract?

          • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

            Because the old contract may have had automatic "triggers" that when funding increased by "X" amount, or returned to a prior level, the "emergency" cuts resulting in furlough days (cuts in compensation to teachers and other personnel) and increased class sizes would be returned to their pre-cut levels. There are also incentives in LCFF for districts to reduce class sizes. It is difficult to know all the particulars without know details of your particular district. … Read More

            Because the old contract may have had automatic “triggers” that when funding increased by “X” amount, or returned to a prior level, the “emergency” cuts resulting in furlough days (cuts in compensation to teachers and other personnel) and increased class sizes would be returned to their pre-cut levels. There are also incentives in LCFF for districts to reduce class sizes. It is difficult to know all the particulars without know details of your particular district. Nothing sounds out of the ordinary in any case.

          • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

            Gavin- They did have that language in the contract- BUT the contract also required that to negotiate in good faith they must enter into a new contract by the June 30, 2014 contract expiration date (hence the breach of contract and failure to comply with Public Disclosure laws and Ed Code). For the District to negotiate behind closed doors to delay contract negotiations until they new what the ew LCFF money was and then to … Read More

            Gavin-

            They did have that language in the contract- BUT the contract also required that to negotiate in good faith they must enter into a new contract by the June 30, 2014 contract expiration date (hence the breach of contract and failure to comply with Public Disclosure laws and Ed Code). For the District to negotiate behind closed doors to delay contract negotiations until they new what the ew LCFF money was and then to use that to trigger salary restorations is illegal. You only need to read one document to see that is what Our District chose to do. The result was the restoration of $5.6 million in salaries from the 2010 teachers strike and then students had 3 furlough days , a class size increase of 1.5 students across all grades to pay for a $10,000 salary increase for CUEA. This was the poster child for lack of accountability – see: http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1343191429797/5667737573387975994.pdf

  15. Don 2 years ago2 years ago

    Dawn, Thanks for all the work you've done on this issue. It's impressive. Truly, after reading the link. Maybe you can answer a basic question that has eluded me. Under the old Revenue Limits system about one-third of Prop 98 spending was categorical and 2/3 Revenue Limit. Under LCFF, 84% goes to the base grant and 16% to the S and C grants. Since not all education spending is included in LCFF the 84/16 ration is not … Read More

    Dawn,

    Thanks for all the work you’ve done on this issue. It’s impressive. Truly, after reading the link.

    Maybe you can answer a basic question that has eluded me.

    Under the old Revenue Limits system about one-third of Prop 98 spending was categorical and 2/3 Revenue Limit.

    Under LCFF, 84% goes to the base grant and 16% to the S and C grants. Since not all education spending is included in LCFF the 84/16 ration is not directly comparable to the previous 66.6/33.3. How much more or less do you think is going to basic funding/ revenue limits or whatever we want to call it? Obviously, the answer is a statewide figure and it still would not account for the basic problem in CUED where S and C money is very limited. But it would provide a baseline understanding from which to start. If base funding actually went up relative to RL percentage-wise (not including the actual dollar increases per pupil) then there is less of an issue as you present it since a state cannot be held accountable to pay X amount of dollars to hit the level what is generally viewed as necessary for an “adequate education”. You can’t get blood from a stone even if it’s a golden stone.

    Replies

    • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

      Don- I honestly cannot answer your question. What I can tell you is that by 2021 the LCFF will provide Districts with what their funding was in 2008. So what is important to see is that the Governor used our children (Prop 30) to get his "surplus" revenue and then chose to keep money that should go to students to pay for other things. What he is doing to our kids is a criminal act. You … Read More

      Don-

      I honestly cannot answer your question. What I can tell you is that by 2021 the LCFF will provide Districts with what their funding was in 2008. So what is important to see is that the Governor used our children (Prop 30) to get his “surplus” revenue and then chose to keep money that should go to students to pay for other things. What he is doing to our kids is a criminal act. You cannot educate a child today for less then $9,500 and funding should be closer to $11,000 to $12,000. He intentionally underfunded wealthy suburban school districts knowing that parents in those districts had the means to get tutors and to fundraise. Unfortunately the ELL and Poor who cannot fundraise or pay for extra help go without. Also there is a reason that he named this the Local Control Funding Formula and that was for the purpose of avoiding a constitutional challenge under the Rodriquez Supreme Court Case. Jerry Brown is going to go down in history as having destroyed California’s public education system all so that he can build his high speed rail. How sad.

      • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

        What name Brown gave the formula doesn't seem have anything to do with it's ultimate legality, if that's what you mean. The Serrano case resulted in the Serrano band to equalize funding (at least that was the intent) because unlike the US Constitution, California does extend constitutional protections to students. Before Serrano, advocacy groups fought to equalize funding between rich and poor districts. Since then they have fought not to equalize … Read More

        What name Brown gave the formula doesn’t seem have anything to do with it’s ultimate legality, if that’s what you mean.

        The Serrano case resulted in the Serrano band to equalize funding (at least that was the intent) because unlike the US Constitution, California does extend constitutional protections to students. Before Serrano, advocacy groups fought to equalize funding between rich and poor districts. Since then they have fought not to equalize funding, but to get more for poorer districts as poverty is a proxy for high needs students who need more funding for the same educational benefit. If you have to pay 50% more to educate one student the other has to get half, for example. That is Brown’s game as you correctly point out. Whether anyone will challenge this formula as creating inequality of educational opportunity remains to be seen. I wonder if the Serrano decision has been legally unraveled with LCFF? Certainly the band created by the legislature is now obsolete. It would be good to get input from legal people who read this forum.

        • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

          The term "Local Control" is important as explained in San Antonio Independent School District vs Rodriguez explained Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/1/ Pp. 411 U. S. 44-53 A State's funding law will not be challenged on Constitutional grounds (specifically as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment) if the State's funding law: 1) Provides an adequate education for EVERY student 2) Allows and encourages "Local Control" - meaning Local School Boards have the abilities to raise … Read More

          The term “Local Control” is important as explained in San Antonio Independent School District vs Rodriguez explained Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/1/ Pp. 411 U. S. 44-53

          A State’s funding law will not be challenged on Constitutional grounds (specifically as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment) if the State’s funding law:

          1) Provides an adequate education for EVERY student
          2) Allows and encourages “Local Control” – meaning Local School Boards have the abilities to raise revenue for District educational programs above the “base”.
          3) The State’s funding law bears a rational relationship to a legitimate State purpose.

          Governor Brown’s intention is to give School Districts and Local Governments the power to tax themselves – that is his next step. He will give us the power to tax ourselves two and three times to provide a service that the State is constitutionally obligated to provide. We do not have that power now- but we will shortly which is why he chose the name of this new law to be “Local Control Funding Formula”.

      • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

        Dawn: I think you're getting lost in the weeds here. Neither LCFF on its best day, nor Prop 30, was ever intended to bring this ages school undoing to anywhere near "adequate." Prop 30 was just to stop the depth of the cuts, and LCFF distributes inadequate school funding a bit more equitably. The roots of CA's school funding program go back to Prop 13 and a series of very unwise tax cuts for business interests. … Read More

        Dawn:

        I think you’re getting lost in the weeds here. Neither LCFF on its best day, nor Prop 30, was ever intended to bring this ages school undoing to anywhere near “adequate.” Prop 30 was just to stop the depth of the cuts, and LCFF distributes inadequate school funding a bit more equitably. The roots of CA’s school funding program go back to Prop 13 and a series of very unwise tax cuts for business interests. The only way to bring per student funding even to the national average is to revise Prop 13, continue prop 30, and reverse the tax cuts. A major hole was pushed into school funding by Arnold’s reversal of the auto registration fee increases that had been returned to historical levels by Davis. The people of CA threw Davis out of office in large part because of that very prudent action. The CA electorate is very averse to taxes (except Prop 30 which was a historical anomaly ) and until that changes school funding will remain abysmal. The train funding has very different antecedents than school funding.

        • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

          You're forgetting the other part of the equation, Gary, the drag that social services puts on the rest of state spending like education. California has only 12% of the country's population and pays 33% of the nation's welfare recipients. It has among the highest maximum monthly cash grants to the average family on welfare, $638 as of 2012. Aid for children continues even when the parents lose eligibility. It provides benefits even to some who find a … Read More

          You’re forgetting the other part of the equation, Gary, the drag that social services puts on the rest of state spending like education.

          California has only 12% of the country’s population and pays 33% of the nation’s welfare recipients.

          It has among the highest maximum monthly cash grants to the average family on welfare, $638 as of 2012.

          Aid for children continues even when the parents lose eligibility.

          It provides benefits even to some who find a job and helps with child care and transportation while attending school or training.

          Nationally, 31 percent of benefits are direct cash while 69 percent are noncash services. California is somewhat the reverse: 56 percent cash, 44 percent noncash.

          There are scores of other social programs in California that drain state resources.

          We are already one of the highest taxed states overall and highest in some specific areas.

          All the while businesses are leaving the state for healthier business climates.

          We are currently overdue by historical standards for a recession and the LCFF increases are based on what one might consider indulgent optimism.

          Sourced

          • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

            More money for schools, especially if spent on win win things such as bonuses for attendance, tutoring services, mandatory Saturday and Summer and After School tutoring for kids not Advanced or Proficient, would be a hand up. This welfare is a hand out. We need to help the poor out of poverty, not keep them in it with perverse incentives. Do things that create skills, not welfare programs which reward lethargy. … Read More

            More money for schools, especially if spent on win win things such as bonuses for attendance, tutoring services, mandatory Saturday and Summer and After School tutoring for kids not Advanced or Proficient, would be a hand up. This welfare is a hand out. We need to help the poor out of poverty, not keep them in it with perverse incentives. Do things that create skills, not welfare programs which reward lethargy. The average kid in California studies 5.6 hours a week. You need to work harder to get out of poverty. Welfare is supposed to help parents be there and do a better job. Social workers should know any kid not advanced of proficient is probably spending more time watching TV than studying. We shouldn’t give welfare to any family if the kids aren’t in school, doing their homework, scoring advanced or proficient and making an honest and diligent effort to be the best student they can be. If you made welfare benefits contingent on advanced or proficient scores, a lot of these lazy goofball parents would become proactive, diligent parents, focused on their child’s education. At least that would limit it to this generation. In Redding and Red Bluff you have families who have been getting government money for 4 generations and their kids don’t even do their homework and don’t focus in class. They think they’re doing nothing wrong. It’s really despicable, that attitude. I agree with Don. Welfare is a hand out. Education especially if done properly, is a hand up. Welfare is a free fish and education is teaching people to fish. Hello! What’s wrong with this picture?

        • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

          Gary- I am not getting lost in the weeds. I am taking us back to the real issue. It is established law that the State of California has a Constitutional obligation to provide an "adequate" education to EVERY student. Therefore the State must provide the funding to pay for EVERY Student to get an adequate education before the State "chooses" to spend money on other things such as High Speed Rail- Drivers Licenses for people who … Read More

          Gary-

          I am not getting lost in the weeds. I am taking us back to the real issue. It is established law that the State of California has a Constitutional obligation to provide an “adequate” education to EVERY student. Therefore the State must provide the funding to pay for EVERY Student to get an adequate education before the State “chooses” to spend money on other things such as High Speed Rail- Drivers Licenses for people who are not legally entitled to be in this country, to add a 14th year to public education and certainly not to sue the students of this state simply because they want an opportunity to be educated.

          You can continue to look for new revenue streams- but if the State continues to choose to spend the money on everything but an adequate education for its students there will never be enough money for students.

          It’s unfortunate that California students have to Sue the State of California to force the Legislature to carry out its constitutional obligations.

          • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

            Dawn: Between higher ed and K-12 CA already spends 50% of its budget. Only 25% goes to social services and CA ranks about 15th of the 50 states in those services. CA is neither in the top 10 or lowest 10 in government benefits. Again, the train funding comes from state bond and federal dollars. You can point to debt service there, but CA just approved more bonds for water issues so "debt service' is pretty much … Read More

            Dawn:

            Between higher ed and K-12 CA already spends 50% of its budget. Only 25% goes to social services and CA ranks about 15th of the 50 states in those services. CA is neither in the top 10 or lowest 10 in government benefits.

            Again, the train funding comes from state bond and federal dollars. You can point to debt service there, but CA just approved more bonds for water issues so “debt service’ is pretty much a given. It is the standard way for states to finance large capital projects.

            As to drivers licenses, I suspect that would be a meta dollar saver for the state. In any case it is not significant.

            There have been a number of successful “adequacy” law suits filed in other states over the years re school funding. There have been a number of adequacy suits filed in CA in recent years, but to my knowledge none have gone anywhere. while the CA court(s) have ruled on the “constitutionality” on various more “ephemeral” issues lately a hard numbered calculation like adequate per student funding seems beyond the court system at this time.

            The state budget analyst, in its CalFacts report, noted that CA ranks about 10th in the nation in taxes paid. Other sources will verify that CA has about the 2nd highest cost-of-living of all the states. CA, minimally, needs to close the gap between that 10th number and the 2nd number. You might call that discrepancy a “structural deficit.”

            Another way to look at it is CA’s “taxes paid,” at #10, is in unadjusted dollars. CA’s school funding per student ranks 39th in the nation in unadjusted dollars. It’s when the dollars are adjusted for cost-of-living that CA comes in 49th or 50th in the nation. If you adjusted CA “taxes paid” into cost-of-living weighted terms that would put the revenue stream considerably lower.

            The big, and real, problem in the state is its lack of revenue.

          • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

            Dawn, this statistic is most significant: California has only 12% of the country’s population and pays 33% of the nation’s welfare recipients. Dawn, California is a "death spiral" state We have more recipients of welfare programs than taxpayers. Factcheck.org In addition, our salaried and mostly unionized government workers are among the highest paid in the nation and our pension obligations are a sinking ship. California has huge government bureaucracy surpassing all states. We do have nice weather and … Read More

            Dawn, this statistic is most significant:

            California has only 12% of the country’s population and pays 33% of the nation’s welfare recipients.

            Dawn, California is a “death spiral” state

            We have more recipients of welfare programs than taxpayers. Factcheck.org

            In addition, our salaried and mostly unionized government workers are among the highest paid in the nation and our pension obligations are a sinking ship. California has huge government bureaucracy surpassing all states.

            We do have nice weather and scenery even if our public schools have gone to hell.

            Gary answer to all questions is more taxes.

            That’s a problem when you don’t have enough taxpayers and businesses are leaving in droves.

            Invest in private schools.

          • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

            Gavin- I am just a parent - but from my perspective - you cannot squeeze much more money from me- I cannot pay three times for a service that the State is suppose to pay for. Let me give you an example away from education. I live in San Clemente right across the street from the California State Park. I pay my taxes which should open the State parks for everyone. (Remember the scandal - the State Parks … Read More

            Gavin-

            I am just a parent – but from my perspective – you cannot squeeze much more money from me- I cannot pay three times for a service that the State is suppose to pay for.

            Let me give you an example away from education.

            I live in San Clemente right across the street from the California State Park. I pay my taxes which should open the State parks for everyone. (Remember the scandal – the State Parks had a big surplus) yet I have to buy a State Park Pass for $195 per year to walk my dog across the street from my home. ANd sadder for me- I had to buy three this year because one was lost- one was stolen out of my car. And ever sadder for me is that now people park in front of my home and leave their cars for 3 and 4 days at a time because they don;t want to pay the $20 per day extra car parking fee.

            So please explain again why I am to pay the highest taxes in the nation and then pay fees (which are essentially another tax) to get the service that the State is already obligated to pay for.

            My District just accepted 200 “New Comers” that would be “unaccompanied minors” who walked across the borders ILLEGALLY. There needs have just been placed at the #1 spot on the LCAP. So should I just tell my child that they are not as important as these “NEW COMERS”?

          • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

            Dawn: WE are the state and WE need to pay for state services. Unless you are in the top 3% in income in the state it is highly unlikely you pay very high taxes. Remember the state LAO's analysts number: 10th of the 50 states. If you are in that top bracket then you can pay the taxes. The state can't be "obligated" to pay for services that aren't supported by the tax revenues it collects. CA … Read More

            Dawn:

            WE are the state and WE need to pay for state services. Unless you are in the top 3% in income in the state it is highly unlikely you pay very high taxes. Remember the state LAO’s analysts number: 10th of the 50 states. If you are in that top bracket then you can pay the taxes.

            The state can’t be “obligated” to pay for services that aren’t supported by the tax revenues it collects. CA runs a very lean system. Aimless complaints are made about the compensation of CA state employees, but again this is the 2nd highest cost of living state in the nation. Are the employees supposed to buy cheap housing in Nevada and commute to work every day? Some folks need to get real.

            The state parks “scandal” was an interesting one. Notice no one was accused of taking any money or using the dollars in inappropriate ways. The money was kept “hidden,” in various budget lines because the parks personnel expected there would be further cuts in the future (True!) and wanted to keep the dollars in reserve. Some scandal.

            Not only does CA have the highest class sizes in the nation, meaning fewest teachers per student, but also fewest counselors, fewest school nurses, and fewest librarians. On a per capita basis we have among the fewest state employees in all categories inside and outside of education in the nation.

            There was a lot of scary talk about the wealthy heading for the borders if Prop 30 happened. No observable logjams of Mercedes and BMWs observed at the state line. In fact, the demographics indicate CA lost low income people in the recession. That high cost-of-living again. The SF Bay Area doesn’t have some of the highest real estate values in the nation because the wealthy are moving out. They are moving in and creating the housing crunch. Same goes for business in general. Small business has grown in the last few years by a considerable amount. Good research shows business doesn’t leave CA any faster than it does any other state, and when it leaves it typically goes overseas. There’s a lot of hyperbole generated by business oriented media looking for more business tax breaks, and of course there’s the right wing radio/TV echo chamber that endlessly repeats the same baloney.

            Sorry about your parking issues. Don’t have any recommendations for that.

  16. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    “A Parents Perspective regarding California’s New LCFF

    http://disclosurecusd.blogspot.com/2014/11/re-research-brief-toward-grand-vision.html

    Does California’s new Education Funding System (LCFF Law) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution because it discriminates against students based on wealth, race and ethnicity? The answer – as a matter of law must be yes as long as the Base Grant is set so low that the Base Grant alone is insufficient to provide an adequate education to EVERY student in the state of California.

  17. navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

    Had districts already been properly doing their lea and school level plans, having defined metrics would not have been a problem. I do agree with the template lameness. It made the third section of the document essentially useless which in our version took 30 pages to communicate what could have been communicated in 2. The new template I have seen is not much better and in some cases is even worse. For example, yearly expenditures … Read More

    Had districts already been properly doing their lea and school level plans, having defined metrics would not have been a problem.
    I do agree with the template lameness. It made the third section of the document essentially useless which in our version took 30 pages to communicate what could have been communicated in 2.
    The new template I have seen is not much better and in some cases is even worse. For example, yearly expenditures are now separated, which removes the ability to easily see yearly differences for a goal or action.
    I do know some local BoE members still consider it nothing more than a compliance document, and that’s should be considered a failure.
    It may not be possible yet to know whether staff see it the same way given this year that is probably not distinguishable from the barriers to implementation mentioned in this report.

    Replies

    • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

      Navagio- I was unable to respond to your original post because I am not in the education field and this was something beyond my comprehension. I would just like to have someone help me preserve a quality public education in my district which is being punished simple because South Orange County is perceived to be wealthy. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow a State law to discriminate based on wealth. The … Read More

      Navagio-

      I was unable to respond to your original post because I am not in the education field and this was something beyond my comprehension. I would just like to have someone help me preserve a quality public education in my district which is being punished simple because South Orange County is perceived to be wealthy. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow a State law to discriminate based on wealth. The Law needs to be bind when it comes to wealth. Students in Capistrano are being deprived of an adequate education simply because they happen to live in a wealthy school District. That is illegal.

      • navigio 2 years ago2 years ago

        Hi Dawn. A couple thoughts without writing a thesis.. ;-) The base grant is equal. So in terms of inadequacy, there is no discrimination there. Our state is equally inadequate. ;-) While it's true the addition of supplemental and concentration grants appear to create inequity, I think it's important to recognize all compensatory programs would violate that provision. The reason we have allowed them is that we have shifted away from measuring equality based on … Read More

        Hi Dawn. A couple thoughts without writing a thesis.. 😉

        The base grant is equal. So in terms of inadequacy, there is no discrimination there. Our state is equally inadequate. 😉
        While it’s true the addition of supplemental and concentration grants appear to create inequity, I think it’s important to recognize all compensatory programs would violate that provision. The reason we have allowed them is that we have shifted away from measuring equality based on opportunity and instead now do it mostly based on outcome. In other words, strict equality of funding is not necessarily considered equality of opportunity, because measured by outcomes, it produces unequal results.
        It is not my goal to imply a stance on this, rather simply to point out the current meanings of equality and how those differences may manifest in the public, political and legal domains.
        Note also that these things are not static so they may be subject to change depending on the circumstances (and the judge 😉 ).

        • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

          But, Navigio, the S and C grants are NOT based on outcome, but rather on the three categories, free and reduced lunch meal program, ELL, foster. I understand these are a proxy, but many students who are not in those categories also underperform and some in them don't underperform. No matter how successful the students who bring in the grant funding, they will continue to do so in perpetuity and students who don't get a … Read More

          But, Navigio, the S and C grants are NOT based on outcome, but rather on the three categories, free and reduced lunch meal program, ELL, foster. I understand these are a proxy, but many students who are not in those categories also underperform and some in them don’t underperform. No matter how successful the students who bring in the grant funding, they will continue to do so in perpetuity and students who don’t get a higher base will continue to be underfunded forever under LCFf. That probably is a rhetorical point since the likelihood of those grants having any effect on student achievement is practically nil. Once again,just look at the SIG program.

          Dawn, Prop 98 is a constitutional amendment that set the level of education funding in this state based on yearly revenue. I agree in a common sense way that constitutional priorities ought to come first to give constitutional protection some meaning. But with the level of poverty in California we would have to spend all of California’s budget on education to provide an adequate education.

          In regards to Gary’s response, “The state can’t be “obligated” to pay for services that aren’t supported by the tax revenues it collects” – it can make cut to students with Gary’s seeming begrudging acquiescence, but not to his union members’ pensions that the state is obligated to pay. In fact, Brown just made your district and mine more responsible for those payments to the great disrespect of the students of California who were not even born when the Democrat leaders gave away the bank to poor decisionmaking of the union dominated government pension leadership.

          When Gary says WE have to pay for education he doesn’t actually include himself. He’s talking about other people.