Proposition 98 funding for K-12 schools and community colleges has recovered dramatically since the low of $47 billion in 2011-12 to what would be a high of $68.4 billion next year. The black bar represents revised estimates of  Prop. 98 revenue for three years in Gov. Brown's May budget proposal.

California Department of Finance

Proposition 98 funding for K-12 schools and community colleges has recovered dramatically since the low of $47 billion in 2011-12 to what would be a high of $68.4 billion next year. The black bar represents revised estimates of Prop. 98 revenue for three years in Gov. Brown’s May budget proposal.

A projected big infusion of state revenue next year will inject much more money into the new K-12 education finance system than school districts and state officials expected at this point.

For the budget year starting July 1, Gov. Jerry Brown is proposing an additional $6.1 billion for the Local Control Funding Formula, the funding system that shifts more authority over operating budgets to local school boards. It also steers more dollars to “high-needs” students – English learners, low-income children and foster youth. The new dollars will take districts much closer, after only three years, to what the Legislature set as full funding when it passed the funding law in 2013.

The Legislature defined full funding as the end of a transition period from the old revenue distribution system, where districts were funded unequally, based often on outdated formulas and a grab bag of earmarked funds, called categoricals, to one where, with few exceptions, funding would be uniform. All districts would receive the same base funding per student, with supplemental dollars flowing to districts according to the proportion of their high-needs students.

Brown’s proposed increase will bring the total for the Local Control Funding Formula to $53.1 billion. That’s about $6 billion ahead of schedule, according to the state Department of Finance. By one measure, that equals 90 percent of full funding, currently estimated to be $60 billion. By another measure, it’s 70 percent of the way there (see graphic below for an explanation of the difference).

Of K-12 funding from Proposition 98, the main source of revenue for K-12 schools and community colleges, 79 percent will be distributed to districts through the funding formula next year, with the rest allocated for community colleges, special education, child nutrition and a few other state programs.

The top graph, by the Legislative Analyst's Office, shows that the Local Control Funding Formula  will reach about 90 percent of full funding – $60 billion – under Gov. Brown's proposed budget. In the bottom graph, the education consulting firm School Services of California says the formula would reach 70 percent of full funding  next year. School Services started at $39 billion in 2012-13, the last year under the old revenue system, and calculated the gap between it and full funding. Next year's proposed  $53.1 billion for the funding formula closes the gap by 70 percent.  That is still much greater than the theoretical red trend line, consisting of steady yearly increases – which the state's boom and bust tax system never produce.

The top graph, by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, shows that the Local Control Funding Formula will reach about 90 percent of full funding – $60 billion – under Gov. Brown’s proposed budget. In the bottom graph, the education consulting firm School Services of California says the formula would reach 70 percent of full funding next year. School Services started at $39 billion in 2012-13, the last year under the old revenue system, and calculated the gap between it and full funding. Next year’s proposed $53.1 billion for the funding formula closes the gap by 70 percent. That is still much greater than the theoretical red trend line, consisting of steady yearly increases – which the state’s boom and bust tax system never produces.

The extra money next year for the Local Control Funding Formula would provide $1,088 more per student for the average school district, in which English learners and low-income children make up 63 percent of the students, according to School Services of California, an education consulting company that calculated various scenarios. However, amounts for individual districts would vary tremendously, based on how much they were funded under the old system and their student demographics. Some districts with a small proportion of high-needs students would get as little as $500 to $600 per student, while districts that fared poorly under the old system and all of whose students are poor or English learners could get as much as 20 percent, or $1,590 per student, more.

Some longtime education observers are cautioning districts not to waste an unprecedented spending opportunity that is not likely to come again anytime soon.

“This is the moment when districts should be placing bets on where they want to be in 2020 to do the most good for their students,” said David Plank, executive director of Policy Analysis for California Education, or PACE, a research center based at Stanford University.

The vehicle for setting priorities is the Local Control and Accountability Plan, a document that districts are required to update annually after soliciting the views of parents and the community. In an LCAP, districts list performance goals, metrics to gauge progress and how much they will spend to achieve the goals. Each district’s LCAP must be submitted to the county office of education by the start of the new fiscal year on July 1.

Arun Ramanathan, CEO of Pivot Learning Partners, a nonprofit education consulting firm based in San Francisco, said that districts would be wise to invest in a few strategies that could be sustained for the next several years, such as increasing learning time by extending the school year to reduce summer learning loss, adopting early reading strategies with professional development for teachers and choosing research-based approaches to student discipline. He is worried that districts won’t do that, in part because the LCAP requires districts to respond to eight priorities, including school climate, parent involvement, academic achievement and student engagement.

A lack of clear priorities, he said, could lead “to marginal investment in many areas, with few districts making deep investments.” Scattershot choices might not survive an economic recession or the end of temporary taxes under Proposition 30, which has produced as much as $8 billion in revenue per year. The Legislative Analyst’s Office, in its analysis of the first-year LCAPs, expressed the same concern.

Michael Hanson, superintendent of Fresno Unified, the state’s fourth-largest district with 73,000 students, said that it would be a mistake for districts to automatically fund every pre-recession position and program it cut without seizing the opportunity for new priorities. Having made big budget cuts during the recession, Fresno Unified decision-makers “were clear-eyed and sober” in thinking about how to spend money when it returned, he said.

At its June 2 meeting, the Fresno Unified board passed a budget with $35 million in new money under the Local Control Funding Formula and an additional $28 million in one-time funding. That money, a 12 percent increase, will continue new school strategies that will affect every grade, Hanson said. Changes will include extending preschool to 80 percent of low-income children in the district and extending the instructional day by a half hour – 18 days over the course of the year – in two-thirds of elementary schools with high proportions of low-income students and English learners. Middle schools will offer more courses required for college admission, and the week will be restructured to allow more time for teachers to work together. The focus in high school will be significantly expanding career technical programs and career pathways, including starting a new school for 10th- to 12th-graders focusing on entrepreneurship.

Smaller classes

An acceleration in funding will also affect how soon districts need to reduce class sizes in kindergarten through 3rd grade. The big increase that Brown proposed in the revised May budget – $2.1 billion more than in his original budget in January – caught districts by surprise, said Ron Bennett, School Services’ CEO.

The law creating the new funding formula requires districts to have no more than 24 students per teacher in K-3 grades by full funding. Class sizes would still be higher than the 20-to-1 ratio that the state had in place for the decade before the recession. But districts that have allowed elementary school classes to balloon to 30 kids or more per teacher following state funding cuts would have to hire many new elementary teachers.

The law requires districts to lower class sizes in proportion to increases in funding under the formula. Brown’s proposed $53.1 billion for the formula would mean that districts should be about 70 percent of the way to reducing to 24-to-1 next year – from whatever class sizes they had in place in 2012-13. Districts that fail to reduce their class sizes proportionally in every K-3 school risk losing 10.4 percent of their funding for being out of compliance: $737 per student.

Many districts that had already begun planning for K-3 classes for next year based on the smaller January budget will struggle to meet the new class size ratios on such short notice, Bennett said. They may not have space for more classrooms, and they will have to reassign or hire more staff, then train them for the opening of school. “Some districts are panicked,” he said.

However, the law does permit an exemption: Teachers in a district can vote to waive the smaller classes each year. That’s what teachers in Stockton Unified did with the contract they ratified in April. In receiving a 12.5 percent raise effective July 1, some of it retroactive to 2013, they set class sizes next year at 31-to-1 for 1st through 3rd grades and 24-to-1 for kindergarten. That’s only one student less per class than in 2013-14. Class sizes will drop to 29-to-1 in 2016-17 under the agreement.

Some districts, such as Fresno, are already at 24-to-1 for K-3.

At full funding, the California Department of Finance says, 90 percent of school districts will receive no less than they got before the recession in 2008, adjusted for inflation. Many districts like Fresno, with large numbers of English learners and low-income students for which they receive extra funding, will be at or above that level next year.

Brown and lawmakers assumed that, with gradually increasing revenues and cost-of-living adjustments, it would take eight years, until 2020-21, to fully fund the formula. The Department of Finance is sticking with that projection, even though districts are well ahead of schedule at this point, said Thomas Todd, assistant program budget manager of the Department of Finance. In 2018-19, when temporary taxes from Proposition 30 are set to expire, the department is predicting only a 1 percent growth in revenue in the state’s three main sources of revenue – probably not enough to cover a cost-of-living increase. Revenues going to education could also take a hit in the event of an economic recession, Todd said.

Groups in the Education Coalition, including the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association, will push for either an extension of Prop. 30 taxing the wealthiest 1 percent of wage earners, or another tax to take its place. Brown, however, has repeatedly said he sold Prop. 30 to voters as a temporary tax and is committed to letting it expire.


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.

Expand Comments
Collapse Comments
  1. Don 1 year ago1 year ago

    Ravani said, "Note that no nation on Earth has educational “success” with second language kids and kids in poverty." Followed by, " Money does not guarantee that students will reach high achievement in school but lack of money does appear to guarantee they won’t." So which of these statements is incorrect because they can't both be correct? "Money doesn't guarantee...achievement"? Are you really going make this statement in all seriousness on an education blog? … Read More

    Ravani said, “Note that no nation on Earth has educational “success” with second language kids and kids in poverty.” Followed by, ” Money does not guarantee that students will reach high achievement in school but lack of money does appear to guarantee they won’t.” So which of these statements is incorrect because they can’t both be correct?

    “Money doesn’t guarantee…achievement”? Are you really going make this statement in all seriousness on an education blog?

    What money guarantees is teacher higher compensation and/or more jobs – not that I have any problem with paying education professionals what they’re worth.

  2. Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

    It is interesting that one of the EdSource provided links of a few days ago also talks about "huge" salary increase teachers in Oakland have negotiated: 14%. Now, I am not intimately knowledgeable about how salary processed, or not, in the last seven years of the investment sector driven recession and massive education cutbacks in CA and how it all played out in Oakland. However, if they in Oakland are like most other teachers in … Read More

    It is interesting that one of the EdSource provided links of a few days ago also talks about “huge” salary increase teachers in Oakland have negotiated: 14%. Now, I am not intimately knowledgeable about how salary processed, or not, in the last seven years of the investment sector driven recession and massive education cutbacks in CA and how it all played out in Oakland. However, if they in Oakland are like most other teachers in the state they received little to no compensation enhancement over that time and likely suffered reductions in pay due to furlough days. So that likely means a 14% increase for the total of seven years, or 2% per year. Does that fit the adjective “huge” in someone’s dictionary?

    Replies

    • navigio 1 year ago1 year ago

      So there's something that's always confused me. Employees usually get COLAs (admittedly some have not recently, though sometimes those are repaid after the fact) in order to keep up with inflation. In addition, employees are on a salary schedule which increases their compensation based on longevity or qualifications. This apparently to address the lack of promotional opportunities in some public sector jobs (teacher is good example). Both these things make sense. However I've never quite … Read More

      So there’s something that’s always confused me. Employees usually get COLAs (admittedly some have not recently, though sometimes those are repaid after the fact) in order to keep up with inflation. In addition, employees are on a salary schedule which increases their compensation based on longevity or qualifications. This apparently to address the lack of promotional opportunities in some public sector jobs (teacher is good example). Both these things make sense. However I’ve never quite understood what general salary increases or ‘raises’ are intended to address. Is the argument that it’s intended to keep up with private-sector jobs and increase faster than inflation? Can you clarify?

  3. Charles Hoff 1 year ago1 year ago

    The big question remains. “What difference will it make?” More of the same will get more of the same results.

    “No amount of money will by achievement.” B. Obama

    Until we stop suggesting to parents that schools can educate your children, without your positive participation, money is going to be misplaced. More administrators, more gadgets, more searching for silver bullets!

    Replies

    • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

      The difference might be this: in the US we have only one national test called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Those states with the highest scores on the NAEP are in the north eastern quadrant of the geographic US. Those states also spend the highest amount (on average) per student for K-12 education and they have the highest concentrations of unionized teachers. The states with the lowest NAEP scores are in the south … Read More

      The difference might be this: in the US we have only one national test called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Those states with the highest scores on the NAEP are in the north eastern quadrant of the geographic US. Those states also spend the highest amount (on average) per student for K-12 education and they have the highest concentrations of unionized teachers. The states with the lowest NAEP scores are in the south east quadrant of the US. They spend the least per student on education and, for the most part, outlaw teachers’ rights to collective bargaining (aka, no recognized teachers’ unions). So higher performance on the NAEP is closely correlated with higher school spending, higher concentrations of unionized teachers, and lower levels of students living in poverty. Spending on schools and the social safety net helps.

      CA is something of an anomaly as it has a high percentage of unionized teacher but, historically (since 1985), has had very low funding for education. Much of this is due to the impacts of Prop 13, the general anti-tax milieu created by the business/billionaire driven anti-tax propaganda outfits, and huge tax breaks issued to business as Republicans were allowed to hold the budget process hostage for years. The latter problem was ended by Prop 25 a few years ago, hence the much more timely budget process in the state since.

      In unadjusted dollars CA spending per child was about 35th in the nation for many years, but in dollars adjusted for cost-of living it was often last, or near last, in the nation. Right down there with those cradles of civilization in the Deep South. CA also has the highest number of second language learners in the schools in the nation and the largest number of students living in poverty. These students are difficult and more expensive to educate. Note that no nation on Earth has educational “success” with second language kids and kids in poverty. The answer to get higher percentages of students performing at high levels is to dramatically reduce the number of students living in poverty. The highest performing nations run a child poverty rate of around 5%. The US runs at about a 25% child poverty rate just about the highest in the industrialized world.

      The new funding for CA’s schools appear to have a chance to raise funding per child for education to near, or perhaps slightly above, the national average in unadjusted dollars. In dollars adjusted for cost-of-living it will be interesting to see if it raises CA above the bottom ten states. Some national reports should be coming out soon will be making assessments of CA’s status. Money does not guarantee that students will reach high achievement in school but lack of money does appear to guarantee they won’t.

  4. Isaac 1 year ago1 year ago

    support charter schools

  5. R.S. McAlary 1 year ago1 year ago

    Fresno is NOT at 24-1 in K-3. That is comical. If we had class-size caps in place then we might be close to that ratio. However, with the convoluted formula the district uses to assign "class size" numbers I think it might come as a surprise that most K-3's in FUSD have closer to 30 students, maybe even more. We are hoping, as a community in conjunction with the Fresno Teachers Association, to get our … Read More

    Fresno is NOT at 24-1 in K-3. That is comical. If we had class-size caps in place then we might be close to that ratio. However, with the convoluted formula the district uses to assign “class size” numbers I think it might come as a surprise that most K-3’s in FUSD have closer to 30 students, maybe even more. We are hoping, as a community in conjunction with the Fresno Teachers Association, to get our school board to agree to a cap on class size instead of the ratio formula so that teachers will have the amount of students the district says they have in the classrooms. We are hoping that the LCFF will make that happen.

  6. Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

    "The law creating the new funding formula requires districts to have no more than 24 students per teacher in K-3 grades by full funding." Has anyone read the law regarding class size reduction- no teeth to it. If the bargaining units and districts agree to something different that is fine. See- San Clemente Residents Learn Lessons In School District Governance - Part Two - Goal 1: Class Size Reduction http://disclosurecusd.blogspot.com/2015/06/san-clemente-residents-learn-lessons-in_3.html We are not seeing … Read More

    “The law creating the new funding formula requires districts to have no more than 24 students per teacher in K-3 grades by full funding.” Has anyone read the law regarding class size reduction- no teeth to it. If the bargaining units and districts agree to something different that is fine. See- San Clemente Residents Learn Lessons In School District Governance – Part Two – Goal 1: Class Size Reduction http://disclosurecusd.blogspot.com/2015/06/san-clemente-residents-learn-lessons-in_3.html

    We are not seeing improvement towards class size reduction – just across the board compensation increases. If you call the Orange County Board of Education they say they no longer have any over site- If you call the State they say the same thing. Accountability does not exist under the States new funding law.

  7. Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

    If I understand this correctly - it only means that we are getting closer to our 2021 projected target amount. $8,500 for the Capistrano Unified School District ... which is an insufficient amount of funding to provide a basic education for students especially given the fact that the State is passing increased CalSTRS and CalPERS down to school districts. The base grant is to low to be constitutional. Getting to the target faster than expected … Read More

    If I understand this correctly – it only means that we are getting closer to our 2021 projected target amount. $8,500 for the Capistrano Unified School District … which is an insufficient amount of funding to provide a basic education for students especially given the fact that the State is passing increased CalSTRS and CalPERS down to school districts. The base grant is to low to be constitutional. Getting to the target faster than expected does nothing to restore class sizes, programs and fix our failing facilities.

  8. Don 1 year ago1 year ago

    "Will we rise from the bottom quintile (of spending)?" We already have, but the more important question is whether the current rise in spending equates to a rise in outcome, unless one's concern is more with teachers than students? If LCFF goes the way of SIG and the achievement gap persists undiminished despite the investment, there will be calls in California to double the SC grants. Should that happen, the further enfeeblement of middle … Read More

    “Will we rise from the bottom quintile (of spending)?”

    We already have, but the more important question is whether the current rise in spending equates to a rise in outcome, unless one’s concern is more with teachers than students? If LCFF goes the way of SIG and the achievement gap persists undiminished despite the investment, there will be calls in California to double the SC grants. Should that happen, the further enfeeblement of middle class districts will fuel the charter movement which now stands as the only escape from the failure of the education system for working families who can neither afford private school nor homeschool. If parents have to privately supplement school budgets to keep education above water they will seek refuge from district schools, district policies and the Education Code. In other words, public education will die if the base grant is viewed as a well to support compensatory education.

    Replies

    • navigio 1 year ago1 year ago

      Charter schools are funded the same way.

      • Don 1 year ago1 year ago

        Navigio, as I tried to explain, as parents spend more to keep schools afloat, the impetus for charters increases. Why donate money for traditional schools when districts simply reduce the site budgets? With a charter the district must fund the school per the Ed Code. And, as far as the rest of that Code, it can be dispensed with at a charter (with some exceptions) which is a big benefit.

  9. Sayitok 1 year ago1 year ago

    And let’s not forget the additional STRS and PERS contributions as well as crushing benefits costs.

  10. Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

    A couple of points re above: My first graduate level statistics professor always warned us to be "suspicious" of any bar graph that doesn't start at a base level of "0." Other bar graphs can be configured to exaggerate the "data" being presented. Please note the first bar graph in this article showing general increases in school funding. As has been stated before, at the bargaining table it is always necessary (due to the finite amount of funding … Read More

    A couple of points re above:

    My first graduate level statistics professor always warned us to be “suspicious” of any bar graph that doesn’t start at a base level of “0.” Other bar graphs can be configured to exaggerate the “data” being presented.

    Please note the first bar graph in this article showing general increases in school funding.

    As has been stated before, at the bargaining table it is always necessary (due to the finite amount of funding available after the “core” has been funded) to balance out programs, their assessed needs, and funding. It is a “zero sum game.” Where you take to support one “program,” including CSR (or tech needs, etc.), you are taking support away from another.

    Recall that in many if not most districts certificate staff not only did not receive any increases in compensation from 2007-08 and, because of furloughs, they received pay cuts. This was sustained over almost 7 years. There will be a need to backfill in some critical areas, and compensation is critical to avoid rapid personnel turnover, before things begins to “even out” and return to 2007-08 levels or the CSR levels prescribed by LCFF. Not much use in having a class of 24 if you don’t have a well qualified and experienced teacher to do the instruction.

    It does appear the CA may well reach the “national average” in unadjusted dollars per student. Of, course, Prop 30 will disappear in a couple of years, along with $8 billion in that new funding, dropping CA again to ??? place in national funding per student. The new place of CA in the national hierarchy of school funding in dollars adjusted for cost of living will be interesting. Will we rise from the bottom quintile?

    For those members of the public that “want it all now!,” the experienced teachers, the CSR, the tech, the texts, the professional development, the after school programs, the educational specialists, etc. Now is the time to contact your local legislator and let him/her know that Prop 30’s tax adjustments need to be made permanent and Prop 13 needs to be fixed. Pronto.

    One last thing: There is plenty of evidence to show that US kids and teachers spend more time in the classroom now than in most other countries. Increased time (hours per day or extended school year) has been tried over and over. It has proven to be as expensive as it is ineffective. It is one of the favorite pseudo-reforms of the self-styled reformers as well as some posturing politicians. Deja vu all over again.

    Replies

    • Paul Muench 1 year ago1 year ago

      Is it the extra time part that doesn't work or is it the in school part that doesn't work? I ask because there is the counter example of wealthy families providing extra education for their children. Or are you saying that the money spent by wealthy families to get extra education is just wasted money? Which leads one to think about where the advantage of wealthy families comes from. Do you … Read More

      Is it the extra time part that doesn’t work or is it the in school part that doesn’t work? I ask because there is the counter example of wealthy families providing extra education for their children. Or are you saying that the money spent by wealthy families to get extra education is just wasted money? Which leads one to think about where the advantage of wealthy families comes from. Do you think wealthy children’s advantage comes from who the parents are or who the parents have become?

      • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

        Gary – the Core is not being funded in wealthy areas.

      • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

        Paul: I am not sure what you mean by "extra education." The attributes of wealth that promote higher measured achievement are usually described as living a a safe and low stress community, having adequate food, and adequate health care. The there is lack of exposure to lead and quality pre-natal care. Then there is access to quality child care and pre-school. Is that what you mean by "extra?" The we get to more conversation in the home … Read More

        Paul:

        I am not sure what you mean by “extra education.”

        The attributes of wealth that promote higher measured achievement are usually described as living a a safe and low stress community, having adequate food, and adequate health care. The there is lack of exposure to lead and quality pre-natal care. Then there is access to quality child care and pre-school. Is that what you mean by “extra?”

        The we get to more conversation in the home with increased vocabulary development ( the “million word deficit”), more books in the home, and more “education oriented” activities like going to the library, parks, zoos, historical exhibits, and general travel experiences. All of above adds to the experience and improved context that a child experiences. Learning theory suggests the world (including school) makes more sense when you have a personal context to attach new information to. The more experiences and greater personal context, the greater chance of understanding and increased learning.

        If extended school time was dedicated to bringing kids to parks, museums, aquariums, historical sites, etc., it might be a worthwhile endeavor. However, the self-styled reformers typically mean for kids to get more seat time and more worksheets to do test prep.

        If “extended” meant more quality pre-school it would be a different story.

        The “context” issue I’m talking about reminds me of an (in)famous example of a reading test given in NY City some time ago. As per the typical “reading test” there was s short blurb for the kids to read and then a series of “comprehension questions.” The blurb was about a family going to the mountains for a camping trip. When they arrived they all divide up the tasks to get settled and ready to prepare a meal. It involved stetting up the tent, preparing a fire and gathering wood, and preparing the grill and so so forth. Poor, minority, student failed miserable. They, or many of them anyway, had never been to the mountains or in a forest. They had no experience with gathering wood, starting fires, cooking on a grill, setting up a tent, etc. They had no context. The blurb made no sense to them. Another example of cultural bias in a test, too.

        • Paul Muench 1 year ago1 year ago

          Thank you for the detailed response.

    • navigio 1 year ago1 year ago

      There was a sixth grade homework assignment in our school this year to characterize the same data in different graphs so as to show how one could minimize or exaggerate a yoy change via the choice of y axis scale. 🙂

      • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

        Exactly. Never too young to learn.

    • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

      Gary - No one is going to vote to extend Prop 30 because we can all now see that we were lied to. Our students did not benefit from that tax. Nothing has changed for my child. I had furlough days last year. The beneficiary of the K-12 money were employees. 80% of the Prop 30 revenue went to restore salaries and increase benefits. Employee compensation is 92% of our budget even after an early … Read More

      Gary – No one is going to vote to extend Prop 30 because we can all now see that we were lied to. Our students did not benefit from that tax. Nothing has changed for my child. I had furlough days last year. The beneficiary of the K-12 money were employees. 80% of the Prop 30 revenue went to restore salaries and increase benefits. Employee compensation is 92% of our budget even after an early retirement.

      http://trackprop30.ca.gov/K12State.aspx

      2012-13 Expenses (in billions)

      $32.2Employee Salaries 60 %
      $10.8Employee Benefits 20 %
      $6.5Services & Operations 12 %
      $1.9Books & Supplies 4 %
      $1.4Uncategorized Expenses 3 %
      $1.0Other Expenditures 2 %
      $54.0Total Expenses
      – See more at: http://trackprop30.ca.gov/K12State.aspx#sthash.8hXiRNfY.dpuf

      • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

        Dawn: This is getting repetitive for both of us. Just what "services" do you want to be provided for your children that does not involve "personnel," aka, qualified and experienced certificated teachers, librarians, nurses, psychologists, special ed specialists, counselors, etc? I have given you this question every time you try and make your point. Districts that do not keep competitive salaries suffer high rates of turnover that are bad for quality of services. If you do not want … Read More

        Dawn:

        This is getting repetitive for both of us. Just what “services” do you want to be provided for your children that does not involve “personnel,” aka, qualified and experienced certificated teachers, librarians, nurses, psychologists, special ed specialists, counselors, etc?

        I have given you this question every time you try and make your point. Districts that do not keep competitive salaries suffer high rates of turnover that are bad for quality of services.

        If you do not want to deal with this reality: Discussion over.

        • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

          Gary we have cut $152 million in programs- guidance counselors – we have deferred maintenance on and on and on. We fundraise for art music science etc at some point you need to provide more than the highest paid teachers in the nation and unfunded pension liabilities that increase every year – from $50 million in 2011 to 65 million this year.

  11. navigio 1 year ago1 year ago

    Ironic that the unexpected increase in funding comes with the surprise burden of having to lower class sizes sooner than expected.
    It will be interesting to see whether teachers flock to higher pay or lower class sizes..

    Replies

    • Don 1 year ago1 year ago

      What a massive piece of pork is 42238.02. LCFF creates a framework for Class Size Reduction and the opportunity for local unions to override that framework. In other words, in regard to LCFF CSR was written with a union veto. Got to love local control. 42238.02. (B) Until paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 42238.03 is effective, as a condition of the receipt of funds in this paragraph, a school district shall make progress toward … Read More

      What a massive piece of pork is 42238.02. LCFF creates a framework for Class Size Reduction and the opportunity for local unions to override that framework. In other words, in regard to LCFF CSR was written with a union veto. Got to love local control.

      42238.02. (B) Until paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 42238.03 is
      effective, as a condition of the receipt of funds in this paragraph,
      a school district shall make progress toward maintaining an average
      class enrollment of not more than 24 pupils for each schoolsite in
      kindergarten and grades 1 to 3, inclusive, unless a collectively
      bargained alternative annual average class enrollment for each
      schoolsite in those grades is agreed to by the school district…

      • Tom 1 year ago1 year ago

        That is troubling Don, but per Navigio, am hoping the unions will be on board with smaller class sizes because it means more union members paying dues. For sure I'm watching our District, as best as possible, for what they do. It is not easy to peer through the curtains, however, which is another issue. At our District we are close very close to the 24 student class size but already there … Read More

        That is troubling Don, but per Navigio, am hoping the unions will be on board with smaller class sizes because it means more union members paying dues. For sure I’m watching our District, as best as possible, for what they do. It is not easy to peer through the curtains, however, which is another issue. At our District we are close very close to the 24 student class size but already there have been generous, across the board increases in total compensation. Meanwhile, parents are paying out-of-pocket for extra teaching help. That is troubling as well because would argue that schools are not adequately funded without this extra money. I suppose the LCFF formula is designed to help with some of this, on the backs of the wealthier areas of the State – so what else is new.

        • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

          Tom: What's "new" is that under the previous Revenue Limit Income system wealthier districts were well funded "on the backs" of less wealthy districts. Which type of funding system do you think demonstrate the most just allocation of funds? Then, of course, we have the wealthiest districts of all, the Basic Aide district (I'm not sure to what extent, if any they are affected by LCFF), that continue to receive funding based on their local property tax … Read More

          Tom:

          What’s “new” is that under the previous Revenue Limit Income system wealthier districts were well funded “on the backs” of less wealthy districts. Which type of funding system do you think demonstrate the most just allocation of funds?

          Then, of course, we have the wealthiest districts of all, the Basic Aide district (I’m not sure to what extent, if any they are affected by LCFF), that continue to receive funding based on their local property tax base, which tends to be quite high. I know of basic aide districts in one Bay Area County that received roughly twice the per student funding as a nearby by “low wealth” district. All children deserve an equal access to quality public education but some children who won the gene lottery are more equal than others.

          LCFF simply works on the “needs based” theory of Free and Reduced Lunch and Title I. It costs more to create a level educational playing field for students. Disadvantaged students require more funds to do that. Now if we could just work on the closing all of the economic and social justice gaps that create the significant learning gaps experienced by disadvantaged students before they start the first day of Kindergarten.

          • Tom 1 year ago1 year ago

            There are so many problems with your arguments and assumptions Gary it is hard to know where to start. First of all, the definition of "low wealth" does not mean low income, so either you don't know that, or you are deliberately trying to mislead the readers. All children should get equal opportunities to education but that does not always lead to equal outcomes. It is not just about money, but also … Read More

            There are so many problems with your arguments and assumptions Gary it is hard to know where to start. First of all, the definition of “low wealth” does not mean low income, so either you don’t know that, or you are deliberately trying to mislead the readers.

            All children should get equal opportunities to education but that does not always lead to equal outcomes. It is not just about money, but also family and values. This State has bent over backwards to try to help poor and minority kids and it just doesn’t guarantee a good outcome. While I believe education is the key to reducing poverty, crime, gang violence, there are diminishing returns on investment.

            You bring in the race card by mentioning the gene pool – which is a ridiculous and a politically motivated argument. This is something politicians say for the selfish reason to get votes and money, and serves to divide us. Most of the parents I know in our “low wealth” school district have relatively wealthy because they worked hard for it. Some are minorities from poor backgrounds, worked hard in school, got into great colleges, and still work hard to make a good living. I suppose this means they overcame their genes in your world view.

            Closing “the economic and social gaps” is impossible Gary in a free society. You should know from Carl Marx that it takes an oppressive government to redistribute wealth to attempt that. The problem with this is that it kills incentive, makes the poorer even poorer and dependent on government, and kills freedom.

            • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

              Tom: The term "low wealth" was a reference to the two categories under Revenue Limit Income, the last school funding system in CA prior to LCFF. There were "low wealth" districts getting less funding per child, and "high wealth" getting more funding per child. Then there were (are) the basic aide districts who, generally speaking, get a lot more per child. So the wealthy, in incomes, already advantaged get more advantages in school funding. Just the … Read More

              Tom:

              The term “low wealth” was a reference to the two categories under Revenue Limit Income, the last school funding system in CA prior to LCFF. There were “low wealth” districts getting less funding per child, and “high wealth” getting more funding per child. Then there were (are) the basic aide districts who, generally speaking, get a lot more per child. So the wealthy, in incomes, already advantaged get more advantages in school funding. Just the way conservatives like it. But as I asked, is that justice?

              You spout a lot of cliches about the hard working folks as opposed to the lazy poor. I can get that on Faux, or George Will, David Brooks, the WSJ, etc. anytime. It’s claptrap. A part of the myth that allows the better off to justify to themselves the lousy way we treat the poor and minorities. You may not be able to eliminate poverty altogether, (though the New Deal and Great Society were huge steps forward) but is there any moral reason the US should have close to the highest child poverty trades in the industrialized world?

              A good part of CA’s current budget boom and ability to better fund the schools is based on the outcomes of Prop 30, aka, more taxes on the wealthy. The boom times for the US were when tax rates approached 70% in the 1950s-1970s. The US economy boomed again when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. Maybe the greatest boom in US history. When taxes were cut for the wealthy, along with the deregulation fetish, it led to the biggest crash since the Great Depression.

              The government takes taxes and “redistributes” them in various ways, infrastructure and education and so on, and makes us a better country for it. Or we could, if we had a House and Senate interested in making us a better country.

          • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

            They don't need more member right now- they just raised dues. Further - in my child's district everyone is set to retire in the next couple of years so the plan is to get salary schedule and benefits as high as possible. Have everyone retire and then leave us with the mess we are in and all novice teachers. That is the plan in my District as confirmed by my Superintendent. I asked her how … Read More

            They don’t need more member right now- they just raised dues. Further – in my child’s district everyone is set to retire in the next couple of years so the plan is to get salary schedule and benefits as high as possible. Have everyone retire and then leave us with the mess we are in and all novice teachers. That is the plan in my District as confirmed by my Superintendent. I asked her how we are going to afford the increased pension contributions and the answer was – everyone is retiring- we will hire new teachers at 1/2 the cost and there is the money to pay the increased retirement benefits.

            Just FYI-

            In 2011 CUSD unfunded Pension liabilities were $50 million. Last Year $57 million and with the big compensation increases this year it is in the mid $60’s. Some people should be facing criminal charges for treating students so bad- but today it is OK to punish people just because they live in a wealthy part of the State – just throw our ELL and poor and foster children under the bus. That OK if it punishes the children of wealthy people.

        • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

          Don you are correct- My DIstrict (without public in-put) now has average class si Maximum Class Sizes 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015 -16 Transitional Kindergarten NA 33 to … Read More

          Don you are correct-

          My DIstrict (without public in-put) now has average class si

          Maximum Class Sizes
          2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015 -16
          Transitional Kindergarten NA 33 to 1 33 to 1 32 to 1
          Kindergarten 32 to 1 33 to 1 33 to 1 32 to 1
          Grades 1-3 33 to 1 32 to 1 32 to 1 32 to 1
          Grades 4-5 33 to 1 33 to 1 33 to 1 33 to 1
          Grades 6-8 35 to 1 35 to 1 35 to 1 35 to 1
          Grades 9 – 12 36 to 1 36 to 1 36 to 1 36 to 1

          Class Size Staffing Ratios
          2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015 -16
          Transitional Kindergarten NA 30.5 to 1 30.5 to 1
          Kindergarten 30.5 to 1 30.5 to 1 30.5 to 1
          Grades 1-3 31.5 to 1 31.5 to 1 31.5 to 1
          Grades 4-5 31.5 to 1 31.5 to 1 31.5 to 1
          Grades 6-8 32.5 to 1 32.5 to 1 32.5 to 1
          Grades 9 – 12 34.5 to 1 34.5 to 1 34.5 to 1

          2012-2013 http://www.cuea.org/information_v2/ContractToJun2013.pdf
          2013-2016 http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1229223560406/1218998864154/4316232143675230130.pdf

          • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

            Dawn: CA law mandates that school districts follow the "Sunshine Laws" (Brown Act) re collective bargaining agreements including class size provisions. The initial bargaining proposals of the bargaining agent (union) must be publicly posted at the district office and other venues (public libraries) for a given number of days and then the district's counter proposals are posted publicly in the same fashion. The local board has a public comment period where the public is allowed to … Read More

            Dawn:

            CA law mandates that school districts follow the “Sunshine Laws” (Brown Act) re collective bargaining agreements including class size provisions. The initial bargaining proposals of the bargaining agent (union) must be publicly posted at the district office and other venues (public libraries) for a given number of days and then the district’s counter proposals are posted publicly in the same fashion. The local board has a public comment period where the public is allowed to comment to the board prior to any adoption by the board. Then when adoption of the contract is at hand the board must publicly post this in the board agenda. This gives the public yet another chance to make comment.

            If you are not aware of this process, next time look for these developments. Board agendas are posted at district offices and are typically available if you ask for a copy.

            • navigio 1 year ago1 year ago

              Actually, everything given to the board in board meetings MUST be made available to anyone who asks. Most (all?) districts just post that stuff online or in hard copy anyway.

            • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

              True, outside of personnel and many legal issues.

              It would take a truly dedicated civilian to work their way through an entire board packet. I know. I did it for 20 years.

Template last modified: