Credit: Carole J. Buckwalter / Wikimedia Commons
Chambers of the California State Senate.

The chairman of the state Senate’s budget subcommittee on education and three other Democratic senators are proposing to add $1.2 billion to what Gov. Jerry Brown is budgeting for the Local Control Funding Formula. It’s the first stake in the ground in what could be protracted negotiations over ongoing education spending in the governor’s final state budget.

The funding formula, which covers more than 80 percent of state K-12 funding, provides base funding for general expenses for all districts and additional dollars to districts based on their enrollment of low-income children, English learners, foster and homeless youth.

Under the formula, $1 billion of the additional money would go to expand base funding, with the rest — $200 million — designated as supplemental money for high-needs students. Budget Subcommittee Chair Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, would make room for it by cutting from the $1.8 billion Brown proposes providing to districts for one-time, discretionary spending. In either case, districts could choose how to spend the money, so the disagreement is not over flexibility; it’s over confidence in future revenue.

Brown, who has predicted a recession for several years, remains cautious about revenue beyond next year. So he doesn’t want to build more ongoing money into the formula, with districts making commitments they may not be able to keep.

The four senators, who also include Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica; Steve Glazer, D-Orinda and Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, are confident the money will be there and say districts need budget certainty moving forward.

“It’s a reasonable plan, and we’re confident moving forward,” Portantino said.

Brown is already proposing $3 billion more for the formula — an amount that would achieve the target for full funding that he set four years ago for 2020-21. Under full funding, all districts are restored to 2007-08, pre-recession levels, plus an additional amount based on inflation. Many districts, with large numbers of high-needs students designated for additional funding, are already receiving a lot more than that amount.

Portantino said that districts have been clamoring for an increase in base funding and the proposal “should be well-received.” Districts are facing hundreds of millions of dollars annually in higher pension expenses mandated by the Legislature, special education costs and other expenses. Portantino said they can choose how to use the additional base funding.

Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach, who chairs the Assembly Education Committee and also sits on the Assembly’s budget subcommittee on education, said he was not ready to commit more money to the funding formula beyond what Brown proposes. Last year, he sponsored legislation that would commit money to equalizing state funding for special education among districts once full funding is reached. Doing so would cost hundreds of millions of new dollars. A similar bill may be proposed this year.

“While members of the education community have expressed a desire to increase LCFF funding, they have also expressed a desire to provide ongoing funding increases for other programs, such as career technical education and special education,” he said in a statement. “I intend to give the Senate proposal serious consideration in light of all other budget priorities to find the best balance for schools.”

Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, another member of the budget subcommittee on education, said he plans to sponsor a bill that would set an aspirational target of raising per-pupil spending under the formula to match the national average within seven years.

Budget talks will gain speed in May, after Brown issues his budget revision based on the latest revenue projections.

Transparency clause

The senators’ proposal also includes an accountability provision that goes beyond language that Brown is proposing. Responding to criticism that it’s difficult to track how districts spend money they receive for high-needs students, Brown is suggesting a new budget summary enabling the public to compare how much money districts will receive in the coming year with actions and costs they are planning to take to improve achievement of high-needs students.

The senators would require districts to follow through the following year by detailing how much they actually spent of what they had budgeted for high-needs students and to explain why money was left over. This added transparency requirement should not be a burden for districts, Portantino said. The State Board of Education would be asked to design the new form as part of a district’s annual Local Control and Accountability Plan. (Go here for a prototype the senators created of what the form might look like.)

At least one district already goes beyond what the senators are proposing. Berkeley Unified created its own budget codes that enable it to track each expenditure for high-needs students and sets aside unused money in a reserve fund earmarked for those students. Education Trust-West highlighted this approach in a 2014 report.

SHARE ARTICLE

Comments (5)

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. SD Parent 3 months ago3 months ago

    At least some school districts, like San Diego Unified, are defying the intent of Governor Brown's "one-time" funding. SDUSD has already based its 2018-19 budget decisions (with respect to notifications of intent to lay-off employees) on using the Gov's one-time funding for ongoing expenses and apparently hoping that one of the above education funding ideas will somehow save them from their inability to budget. Honestly, it would not surprise me to see … Read More

    At least some school districts, like San Diego Unified, are defying the intent of Governor Brown’s “one-time” funding. SDUSD has already based its 2018-19 budget decisions (with respect to notifications of intent to lay-off employees) on using the Gov’s one-time funding for ongoing expenses and apparently hoping that one of the above education funding ideas will somehow save them from their inability to budget. Honestly, it would not surprise me to see SDUSD spend any additional education funding that might make its way to the district on pay raises, as the San Diego Educators Association is putting pressure on the district for a retroactive 2% pay raise for 2017-18 and 2.5% raises for 2018-19 (on the heels of 4+% across-the-board raises for all employees in 2016-17).

    Across California, I wonder just how much of the increased revenue from LCFF has gone to pay increases versus increased programs and services for students, and what that increase in pay has done to the CalSTRS and CalPERS unfunded liabilities. Of all the cuts to programs and services in SDUSD during the recession, only K-3 class size was reinstated. All other programs and services that took a hit–e.g. GATE funding and services, VAPA programs, magnet school busing, student programs and transportation to stimulate racial integration, site resources, etc.–have either been reduced further or remained essentially flat.

    Under “local control,” the LCAP is a fictional “accountability plan” that district staff write in essentially a vacuum. SDUSD used to have an LCAP Team, but as the members realized that their time in meetings actually had little to no impact on the LCAP, folks stopped attending them. I’ve personally seen items be added to the LCAP based on community input only to never be implemented and disappear the following year. This year’s LCAP input consists of the district picking 10 items that it considered cutting to solve the budget crisis and letting parents vote on which to cut via an online survey. One item the district has chosen (without community input) to eliminate in 2018-19 is the entire Family and Community Engagement department, which has left the community wondering how, exactly, the district plans to implement “Parent Involvement” as stipulated by the LCAP. So I repeat, the LCAP does not offer true accountability.

    All this is not to imply that there is already sufficient funding to provide an adequate education to students. As noted above, the opportunities for students continue to diminish. It is merely to note that Gov Brown and the Legislature’s plan for “local control” really isn’t about what the community wants or what is in the best interests of students but what those in power want (at least in our large district). And guess who has the least power? Students.

  2. Alyssa Lynch 3 months ago3 months ago

    It is great to see CTE gettying the attention it deserves. It was also great to see AB 1743 modified today after the CTE hearing in Sacramento. That took place last week. However, they still need to include CTE centers. The Governor’s bill for CTE includes CTE Centers! Let’s keep the modifications going for the good of the students.

  3. Fred Jones 3 months ago3 months ago

    I’m very grateful O’Donnell is reminding his colleagues that an ongoing funding stream for CTE is necessary to maintain the state’s investment in these life-inspiring programs the past few years. If we simply give these extra money to districts, CTE will not be a priority (given the policy drivers focus on other subject-matter and priorities).

  4. GeorgeHuff 3 months ago3 months ago

    Will either proposal requiring transparency for school districts’ LCAP also apply to charter schools’ LCAP?

    Replies

    • John Fensterwald 3 months ago3 months ago

      Since charter schools are required to do LCAPs, I assume so.