In an inaugural address rooted in nostalgia but boasting ambitious goals for the future, Gov. Jerry Brown again identified education as a key focus – giving it top billing during remarks at his historic fourth swearing-in ceremony Monday and forecasting billions in additional school funding next year.

Schools will receive $65.7 billion next year, a 39 percent increase over funding levels four years ago, Brown said. It’s an 8 percent increase over the $60.9 billion schools were budgeted to receive this year under the Proposition 98 funding guarantee, which sets minimum funding levels for schools.

“After years of underfunding and even borrowing from our local schools, the state now has significantly increased its financial support for education,” Brown said.

Brown did not offer specifics on next year’s education funding proposal, but those details will be revealed Friday when the governor is expected to unveil his budget proposal for 2015-16.

“Educating the next generation is fundamental to our collective well-being,” Brown said in his 23-minute address.

He touted his Local Control Funding Formula, the state law that gives districts more leeway over how they spend their money and gives additional funding for low-income students, English learners and foster children.

Brown also thanked voters for approving “temporary taxes” – Proposition 30 of 2012, which raised additional revenue for schools – as well as for approving Propositions 1 and 2 in November. The measures, both backed by Brown, provide money for water projects and to create a “Rainy Day Fund” for economic uncertainties.

Corrected, Jan. 7:* Also Monday, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson was sworn in for a second term in a ceremony at Sacramento.

“During my first term, we have begun transforming education in California by providing a world-class education for all students from early childhood to adulthood,” Torlakson said. “But more work needs to be done. For my second term, I want to transform our system to one known far and wide for its excellence.”

Below is the text of the governor’s full remarks on education. The complete inaugural address can be found here. A news release with more details on Torlakson’s swearing in ceremony can be found here.

“Educating the next generation is fundamental to our collective well-being. An issue that has plagued our schools for decades is the enormous barrier facing children from low-income families. When my father was governor, he sought to remedy the wide inequities among different school districts by calling for equalization of funding. His efforts were not successful. 

Now – decades later – we have finally created a much fairer system of school funding, called the Local Control Funding Formula. Under the provisions of this law, state funds are directed to school districts based on the needs of their students. Districts will get significantly more funds based on the number of students from foster care, low-income families and non-English-speaking parents. This program also breaks with decades of increasing centralization by reducing state control in favor of local flexibility. Clear goals are set, and their enforcement is entrusted to parents and local officials. This puts California in the forefront of educational reform.

After years of underfunding and even borrowing from our local schools, the state now has significantly increased its financial support for education. Next year schools will receive $65.7 billion, a 39 percent increase in four years.

The tasks ahead are daunting: making sure that the new system of local control works; recruiting and training tens of thousands of teachers; mastering the Common Core Curriculum; and fostering the creativity needed to inspire students. Teachers need to be held accountable but never forget: they have a tough job to do. They need our encouragement, not endless regulations and micro-management from afar.

With respect to education beyond high school, California is blessed with a rich and diverse system. Its many elements serve a vast diversity of talents and interests. While excellence is their business, affordability and timely completion is their imperative. As I’ve said before, I will not make the students of California the default financiers of our colleges and universities. To meet our goals, everyone has to do their part: the state, the students and the professors. Each separate institution cannot be all things to all people, but the system in its breadth and diversity, through real cooperation among its segments, can well provide what Californians need and desire.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the location of Torlakson’s swearing-in ceremony.

SHARE ARTICLE

Comments

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. Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

    For those interested in reading more on the premise that teacher unionization is supportive of student achievement for the majority of students I can refer you to a previous article written for EdSource: "Why Public Education Needs Teachers Unions." http://edsource.org/2014/why-public-education-needs-teachers-unions/65723#.VK2ouVorfcM There is also an academic paper summarized below that can be found at the link and sums up the issues below. It should be noted that to whatever extent the empirical data can be interpreted in a variety … Read More

    For those interested in reading more on the premise that teacher unionization is supportive of student achievement for the majority of students I can refer you to a previous article written for EdSource: “Why Public Education Needs Teachers Unions.”

    http://edsource.org/2014/why-public-education-needs-teachers-unions/65723#.VK2ouVorfcM

    There is also an academic paper summarized below that can be found at the link and sums up the issues below.

    It should be noted that to whatever extent the empirical data can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and the “causal relationships” be debated, what is clear as far as the 50 states are concerned is that the presence of teachers unions does not negatively impact student achievement as measured by the NAEP, and the lack (or outright banning) of teacher unions does not guarantee student success.

    As part of my initial statement i referred to international test scores. It should be noted that two of the worlds highest achieving countries as measured by the international assessments, Finland and Singapore, also have a highly unionized teaching force. Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish education official now working at Harvard, directly attributes Finland’s successful school system to the strength and influence of its teachers’ union.

    epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/…101/Summary-10.Carini.doc

    BY ROBERT M. CARINI
    INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON
    RESEARCH FINDINGS

    While only 17 prominent studies have looked at the teacher union-achievement link, the evidence suggests that unionism raises achievement modestly for most students in public schools. These favorable patterns on unionism include higher math and verbal standardized test scores, and very possibly, an increased likelihood of high school graduation. Although most studies were conducted on high-school students, favorable union effects were also found at the elementary level. At the same time, a union presence was harmful for the very lowest- and highest-achieving students. Research to date is only suggestive as to why unions may improve achievement for most students. Two promising explanations include the possibility that unions standardize programs, instruction, and curricula in a way that benefits middle-range (most) students, and that unions “shock” schools into restructuring for greater effectiveness by improving connections and communication among district administrators, principals and teachers.

    RECOMMENDATIONS
    • Policy makers should view teacher unions more as collaborators than as adversaries.
    • Policy makers and school districts should reconsider current union proposals for educational improvement. Given the empirical evidence, unions have a solid track record of supporting policies that boost achievement for most students.
    • In unionized school districts, policy makers should direct particular attention to programs for very low- and high-achieving students, and should ensure that appropriate resources and specialized curricula are available.

  2. Doctor J 2 years ago2 years ago

    Was Torlaksen sworn in for his second term in Sacramento or in Concord at MDHS ? The press release link in the story is to a Jan 3, 2011 release not the 2015 release. Errors like this may relect on the accuracy of other parts of the story.

  3. Don 2 years ago2 years ago

    Gary's persuasive agility on Ed Source is almost admirable. He's practically made a second profession of bashing accountability and high stakes testing in particular, but that hasn't stopped him from using the very same to support his statistically driven contention that unions are good for test scores. But he's spent so much time telling us about the negatives of high stakes testing, why should we be impressed that unionized states on average have increased those … Read More

    Gary’s persuasive agility on Ed Source is almost admirable. He’s practically made a second profession of bashing accountability and high stakes testing in particular, but that hasn’t stopped him from using the very same to support his statistically driven contention that unions are good for test scores. But he’s spent so much time telling us about the negatives of high stakes testing, why should we be impressed that unionized states on average have increased those scores? But do the numbers tell the real story? An abstract in the Yale Law Journal of 2011 says otherwise. It found SAT scores to rise for higher performing students while drop out rates increased among low performers.

    The Impact of Teacher Collective Bargaining
    Laws on Student Achievement: Evidence
    from a New Mexico Natural Experiment
    abstract.

    This Note uses the 1999 sunset and 2003 reauthorization of New Mexico’s public
    employee collective bargaining law to estimate the causal effect of teacher collective bargaining
    on student achievement. This Note finds that mandatory teacher bargaining laws increase the
    performance of high-achieving students while simultaneously lowering the performance of
    poorly achieving students. After establishing this core empirical result, the Note explores its
    implications for current trends in American education.

    .law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Student_Organizations/Benjamin_Lindy._The_Impact_of_Collective_Bargaining_Laws.pdf

  4. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    Unilateral- Non-Negotiated Reductions = $11 million · Management (CUMA): $1.5 million · Classified (CSEA): $3.5 million · Certificated (CUEA): $3.5 million · Redirect Categorical Funding: $1.1 million · Other area of savings: $1.4 million Negotiated Employee Concessions: $39.7 million in identified cuts Savings from Class Size increase: = $8.2 million · … Read More

    Unilateral- Non-Negotiated Reductions = $11 million
    · Management (CUMA): $1.5 million
    · Classified (CSEA): $3.5 million
    · Certificated (CUEA): $3.5 million
    · Redirect Categorical Funding: $1.1 million
    · Other area of savings: $1.4 million
    Negotiated Employee Concessions: $39.7 million in identified cuts
    Savings from Class Size increase: = $8.2 million
    · Increase Class Size by 1 all grades saves $4.2 million
    · Increase Class Size by 1.5 all grades $6.4 million
    · Increase Class Size by 2 all grades saves $8.2 million
    Savings from Freezing Salary Schedule: = $2.7 million
    · Management (CUMA) $162,796 mid-year Jan 2013
    · Classified (CSEA) $932,554 full-year
    · Certificated (CUEA) $1,432,144 mid-year Jan 2013
    · Teamsters $207,044 full-year
    Savings from 8 Furlough Days all employees = $9 million
    · Management (CUMA): $100,059 per day
    · Classified (CSEA): $338,361 per day
    · Certificated (CUEA): $1,191,788 per day
    · Teamsters: $43,415 X 8 per day
    Furlough Days from 2011-2012 contract + 2012-2013 contract
    · Management (CUMA) 6 current + 2 = Total 8 Furlough Days
    · Classified (CSEA) 0 current + 8 = Total 8 Furlough Days
    · Certificated (CUEA) 3 current + 5 = Total 8 Furlough Days
    · Teamsters 4 current + 4 = Total 8 Furlough Days
    Savings from each 1% Salary Rollback = $19.8 million
    · Management (CUMA) Each 1% = $194,030
    · Classified (CSEA) Each 1% = $589,227
    · Certificated (CUEA) Each 1% = $2,031,912
    · Teamsters Each 1% = $68,832

    Total Identified Cuts $51 million
    * When Prop 30 passed CUSD only needed to implement $30 million of the $51 million in identified cuts. CUSD chose not to implement the $19.8 million in identified Salary Rollbacks- preserving employee salaries.

    2013-2014 Reductions $14 million

    With the Passage of the States New LCFF the District received $8.42 million in new funding. However, because there was no LCAP in place to ensure accountability; CUSD passed a 2013- 2014 budget without having any employment contracts in place (over 92% of the budget). Execution of 2013- 2014 employment contracts were intentionally delayed so that new LCFF money could be added to revenues. WHY? So that the COLA + “New” LCFF moneys could be combined to trigger $5.622 million in salary restorations from the 2010 teachers strike.

    By delaying contract negotiations CUSD paid employees $5.622 million in salary restorations then started the process of identifying $13,381 in budget cuts for 2013-2014- our current school year.

    The result:
    Protected Salaries- Pensions- Benefits- for employees
    Cuts to student services- Increased class sizes- cuts to programs- deferred maintenance- 3 instructional furlough days

  5. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    2011-2012 – $ 9.6 million
    · Classified Support Reductions (CSEA) (Reduced Calendar for 10 month employees)
    · Salary Rollback: (Management 3.7%)
    · Medical/Dental Benefits – (Effective January 2011, all employees pay a larger share of the monthly premium cost % not specified)

  6. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    2010-2011 - $34.9 million · Salary Restorations $8.2 million · 2010-2011 Reductions $26,709,000 ($34.9 - $8.2) · Program Reductions (5-11-10) $ 5,500,000 · Eliminated Positions (6-29-10) $ 2,465,000 · Management Reductions (2011-2012 Eliminated … Read More

    2010-2011 – $34.9 million
    · Salary Restorations $8.2 million
    · 2010-2011 Reductions $26,709,000 ($34.9 – $8.2)
    · Program Reductions (5-11-10) $ 5,500,000
    · Eliminated Positions (6-29-10) $ 2,465,000
    · Management Reductions (2011-2012 Eliminated 2 middle school assistant principals)
    · Classified Support Reductions (CSEA) (Eliminated 28 positions and reduced calendar days and hours for 9.5 month employees)
    · Increased Class Sizes: (Increased class sizes in 1st grade from 20 to 31.5 students)
    · Furlough Days
    CSEA: Up to 4.5 days 2010 – 2011
    CUEA: 1.5 – 3 days
    Teamster: 4 days since
    Management: 6 days
    · Salary Consessions:
    CUEA 1.2% = $ 19,700,000
    Teamsters 1% = $ 490,000
    CSEA .7% = $ 5,334,000
    CUMA 5.25% = $ 1,470,000
    · Salary Restorations – All Groups $ (8,250,000) (Students Still Had Furlough days – large class sizes – deferred maintenance – cuts to programs)
    · Total Reductions after $8,250 in restorations: $ 26,709,000

  7. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    2009-2010 (April 2009) - $25.6 million 2009-2010 (September 2009) - $7.8 million 2009-2010 Reductions $33.4 million ($25.6 + $7.8) · Management Reductions: (Eliminated 21 management / confidential positions at the District level and 11 elementary assistant principals) · Classified Support Reductions (CSEA) (Eliminated 55 positions) · Increased Class Sizes: (Increased class sizes in 2nd and 3rd grade from 20 to … Read More

    2009-2010 (April 2009) – $25.6 million
    2009-2010 (September 2009) – $7.8 million

    2009-2010 Reductions $33.4 million ($25.6 + $7.8)
    · Management Reductions: (Eliminated 21 management / confidential positions at the District level and 11 elementary assistant principals)
    · Classified Support Reductions (CSEA) (Eliminated 55 positions)
    · Increased Class Sizes: (Increased class sizes in 2nd and 3rd grade from 20 to 31.5 students)
    · Reduced Instructional support services: (Reduced Counselors, elementary music teachers, psychologists, and resource teachers on special assignment)
    · Program and Service Reductions: Eliminated or reduced many programs to utilize categorical flexibility including:
    Adult Education·
    Summer School·
    PE Grants·
    Deferred maintenance·
    Cal-SAFE·
    Art & Music Block Grant·
    CAHSEE Instruction·
    PAR·
    Instructional Materials·
    Professional Development and School and library Block Grants
    · · Furlough Days
    CUEA: 3 non-instructional days +1 instructional day
    Management: 11 – 12 days

  8. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    2008-2009 – $20.5 million

    Management Reductions (Eliminated 26 District-level management and confidential positions and 5 site-level positions)

    Classified Support Reductions (CSEA) (Eliminated 42 positions)

    Classified Support Reductions (Teamsters) (Eliminated 2 positions)

  9. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    CUTS TO STAFF AND PROGRAMS SINCE 2006

    2006-2007 & 2007-2008 – $10.5 million
    · Classified Support Reductions (CSEA) (Eliminated 94 positions)
    · Classified Support Reductions (Teamsters) (Eliminated 52 positions)
    · Program and Service Reductions
    · Reduced home-to-school transportation from 47 to 18 routes operated under a “parent pay” program

  10. Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

    We do not have credentialed librarians at every school - they have all been laid off since our District has had to cut $150 million from its $473 million dollar budget. We do not have school nurses at every school. Our counselors have all been aid off and we now have parent organizations setting up on campus counseling paid for with fundraising dollars. Art and music are paid for with fundraising dollars. Massive testing is … Read More

    We do not have credentialed librarians at every school – they have all been laid off since our District has had to cut $150 million from its $473 million dollar budget. We do not have school nurses at every school. Our counselors have all been aid off and we now have parent organizations setting up on campus counseling paid for with fundraising dollars. Art and music are paid for with fundraising dollars. Massive testing is halted to save money and to prevent parents from seeing how low the scores will be as we transition from one curriculum to another. My school receives $7,002 per student. So we are not receiving the money for all the things you state.

  11. Richard Moore 2 years ago2 years ago

    I will believe things are getting better when:

    1) class size statewide is 20

    2) credentialed librarians are mandated in every school

    3) school nurses are available at every school

    4) school counselors are hired at the national average

    5) art and music teachers are hired for every school

    6) massive testing is halted so that students can get back to learning

    Replies

    • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

      I am in the Capistrano Unified School District in Orange County California RE: CLASS SIZE Kindergarten: Average 33 students to 1 teacher with a maximum of 35 students to 1 teacher in an individual classroom Grades 1- 3: Average 34 students to 1 teacher with a maximum of 35 students to 1 teacher in an individual classroom Grades 4-8: Averages above 29.9 – no maximum set for individual classrooms We have many classes that have over 40 students to … Read More

      I am in the Capistrano Unified School District in Orange County California

      RE: CLASS SIZE

      Kindergarten: Average 33 students to 1 teacher with a maximum of 35 students to 1 teacher in an individual classroom
      Grades 1- 3: Average 34 students to 1 teacher with a maximum of 35 students to 1 teacher in an individual classroom
      Grades 4-8: Averages above 29.9 – no maximum set for individual classrooms

      We have many classes that have over 40 students to one teacher.

      Source: Source: February 12, 2014 Board Meeting Agenda Item #1 and 2http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1229223560406/1218998864154/7569031574149012313.pdf

  12. Peter Meyer 2 years ago2 years ago

    It’s hard to believe that Brown is serious calling schools “underfunded” when the U.S. spends more per student than any industrialized country. American education — our students — are being held hostage by bad pedagogical theory and labor unions. I feel sorry for California children and taxpayers.

    Replies

    • el 2 years ago2 years ago

      Those international comparisons that get touted from time to time aren't valid, because there's no consistent accounting for what is "education" spending. For example, a substantial percentage of what American schools spend on "education" is money for health insurance for employees, plus lesser amounts for school nurses and supporting disabled children. In other countries, this money is accounted as "health care" - and many of those other countries happen to provide health care for far less … Read More

      Those international comparisons that get touted from time to time aren’t valid, because there’s no consistent accounting for what is “education” spending.

      For example, a substantial percentage of what American schools spend on “education” is money for health insurance for employees, plus lesser amounts for school nurses and supporting disabled children. In other countries, this money is accounted as “health care” – and many of those other countries happen to provide health care for far less money, in some first world countries, close to half of the US cost per capita. That has to be teased out.

      Another area is sports. In the US, a lot of youth sports is funded through schools, but in Europe, youth sports are more likely to be funded by municipalities and other entities outside schools.

      Bruce Baker at schoolfinance101 has written about this and is working on a paper to try to come up with more accurate comparisons.

      • FloydThursby1941 2 years ago2 years ago

        That's a great point El, very true. I wish there were more books comparing European school systems with ours. Did you ever see 'The Class' (French)? I felt that they don't succeed with everyone but they seem to make much more of an effort there. The book was better. Sports is separate there, like Rec leagues here. It's more like Elementary School here. Health is a huge factor, … Read More

        That’s a great point El, very true. I wish there were more books comparing European school systems with ours. Did you ever see ‘The Class’ (French)? I felt that they don’t succeed with everyone but they seem to make much more of an effort there. The book was better. Sports is separate there, like Rec leagues here. It’s more like Elementary School here. Health is a huge factor, covered in taxes. Here in SF they really stick it to teachers with families on the health insurance and it discourages people from having more kids, which is terrible as teachers’ kids are generally very successful and net societal contributors. So sad!

    • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

      Mr. Meyer: "It’s hard to believe that Brown is serious calling schools “underfunded” when the U.S. spends more per student than any industrialized country. American education — our students — are being held hostage by bad pedagogical theory and labor unions. I feel sorry for California children and taxpayers." Interesting comment, sir. I wonder if you understand the ramifications of what you said? The OECD, which makes the international comparisons of "industrialized nations" (32 nations) ranks the US … Read More

      Mr. Meyer:

      “It’s hard to believe that Brown is serious calling schools “underfunded” when the U.S. spends more per student than any industrialized country. American education — our students — are being held hostage by bad pedagogical theory and labor unions. I feel sorry for California children and taxpayers.”

      Interesting comment, sir. I wonder if you understand the ramifications of what you said?

      The OECD, which makes the international comparisons of “industrialized nations” (32 nations) ranks the US in the middle of the pack in terms of how US schools perform. It also ranks the same nations in the percentage of children living in poverty. In that measure the US ranks 31 out of thirty two, with only Mexico having more children living in poverty.

      This is a critical indicator. If you take those international tests, administered by the OECD, and look at the US schools with 10% or fewer children in poverty, as indicated by participation in the Free and Reduced Lunch program, you find US schools rank 1st in the world on the international comparisons. US schools with 25% or fewer children on “free and reduced” you find the schools rank with the other top achieving countries. It is only when you take schools with majorities of children on “free and reduced” that you find international scores that are far below the international average. And, again, the US has more children living in poverty than all but one of the world’s industrialized nations. The fact that the US has average scores, but far above the average number of students living in poverty shows that the US gets a “lot of bang for the buck” from its educational system. It should be added that children living in poverty, on average, do not do well in the international comparisons in any industrialized nation.

      Re “the bad pedagogical theory.” Yes. An interesting factor here is that there is a lesser talked about international comparison for reading skills called the PIRLS. Then there is this nation’s only real “national test,” called the NAEP which also measures reading skills (as well as other skills). Around the year 2000 the US scored in the top 3 nations of the world on the PIRLS with our “best readers” tops in the world. NAEP scores were growing at about 6 points per year with the gap between Whites and minorities closing. Around 2002 the impacts of No Child Left Behind, and the Bush era reading “pedagogy,” called the Reading First Initiative, were being felt in schools across the country. By the mid 2000s US PIRLS scores had dropped this country into the high teens compared to other nations, NAEP scores had “flatlined,” and the closing of “achievement gaps” had disappeared. The test based accountability of NCLB, narrowing curriculum, and the simplistic skills based reading curriculum of Reading First were imposed on the schools. They were not the choice of schools or teachers’ unions. Bad pedagogical theory, indeed.

      As to “labor unions.” You are aware that, on the NAEP, the highest scoring states in the US are all highly unionized. In the lowest scoring states teachers are not allowed by law to collectively bargain. Looking only at Massachusetts, it is one of the most highly unionized states, one of the highest states in spending for education, and has relatively fewer children living in poverty compared to other states. On the international comparisons, if Massachusetts could be looked at as a “country,” it would score among the highest scoring countries in the world.

      CA has the highest percentage of people (including children) living in poverty in the US, more children with languages other than English as their heritage language, and the state is 50th (or perhaps 49th or 48th) in the amount spent per child for K-12 education compared to the other 50 states. I, too, feel sorry for CA’s children.

  13. Don 2 years ago2 years ago

    Brown may have spoken as though he was giving top billing to K12 education, but I don't see it that way. The budget is higher primarily due to increased tax revenues which trigger Prop 98 increases and local property taxes in particular, the sunseting of the triple flip this school year, and an automatic trigger for the payback the deferrals of the last few years. Despite a rosy economy, Brown is unlikely to even … Read More

    Brown may have spoken as though he was giving top billing to K12 education, but I don’t see it that way. The budget is higher primarily due to increased tax revenues which trigger Prop 98 increases and local property taxes in particular, the sunseting of the triple flip this school year, and an automatic trigger for the payback the deferrals of the last few years. Despite a rosy economy, Brown is unlikely to even fulfill his promise to fully fund LCFF by the end of the phase-in. In other words, it was really good luck that he got as far as he did in funding LCFF after promising the world if Prop 30 passed.

    From LAO report;

    “Given the higher LCFF targets, growth in
    the minimum guarantee would have to outpace
    COLA rates significantly to fully fund the LCFF
    by the end of the forecast period.”

    That’s because the unions get served first, students second.

    Here’s a larger excerpt from the report:

    “State Could Make Progress but Likely Not
    Fully Implement LCFF by 2019-20. In 2013-14, the
    state replaced most of its former school funding
    formulas with the LCFF. In creating the LCFF,
    the state set funding targets considerably higher
    than the 2012-13 funding levels and specified
    that the targets were to be adjusted annually for
    cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). Given the higher
    funding targets, the state expected the LCFF would
    not be fully funded until 2019-20. For 2014-15, we
    estimate the LCFF is 80 percent funded. Under
    our main scenario, the LCFF would be 91 percent
    funded by 2019-20 if the state dedicated the
    increase largely to LCFF. (Our estimate assumes
    the state creates no new categorical programs
    throughout the period and all existing categorical
    programs but adult education receive only ADA
    growth and COLA. Consistent with statutory
    intent, we assume the adult education program
    receives an additional $500 million in 2015-16.
    We also assume community colleges continue
    to receive roughly 11 percent of Proposition 98
    funds.) Given the higher LCFF targets, growth in
    the minimum guarantee would have to outpace
    COLA rates significantly to fully fund the LCFF
    by the end of the forecast period. Whereas annual
    COLA rates range from 1.6 percent to 2.9 percent
    over the 2015-16 through 2019-20 period, annual
    growth in the guarantee ranges from 2.5 percent
    to 4.1 percent—somewhat but not markedly higher
    than the COLA rates.”

    The report seems to be saying given that LCFF will not be fully funded by 2019-20 the COLAs will outpace the minimum guarantee. You can see where the priorities are, not that I’m against cost of living increases It’s just a confluence of fortunate events that is providing a modicum of relief to the starving students of California, not the Governor making sacrifices to help fund the education budget.

    Replies

    • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

      “Jerry Brown Stands Atop California’s Collapsing House Of Cards”

      forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2013/07/08/jerry-brown-stands-atop-californias-collapsing-house-of-cards/

      • Dawn Urbanek 2 years ago2 years ago

        Don is correct. I have documented how underfunded my District is, and how underfunded the District will remain even if LCFF is fully funded by 2021. If parents and tax payers really understood what our Governor have done to the children of this great state not a single one of them would have been re-elected. If you would like to see how bad things really are please read my letter to Governor Brown dated March 26th, … Read More

        Don is correct. I have documented how underfunded my District is, and how underfunded the District will remain even if LCFF is fully funded by 2021. If parents and tax payers really understood what our Governor have done to the children of this great state not a single one of them would have been re-elected.

        If you would like to see how bad things really are please read my letter to Governor Brown dated March 26th, 2014 and my perspective on LCFF.

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

        https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCSUA6CP4ofuy0hJhxKmE9Do0Psrb3ruwqKfsJO3LIY/edit?pli=1