Credit: Lea Suzuki San Francisco Chronicle/Polaris
Students at a San Francisco elementary school attend an after school program on May 10, 2021.

California school districts and charter schools will soon begin to spend record state funding along with more than $50 billion in state and federal Covid relief funding they are receiving this year. A website that’s intended to let the public see how they are using some of that money won’t be up anytime soon.

That’s frustrating for a state senator and groups advocating for low-income students who are criticizing the unexplained delays in creating a public “web portal.” They say state officials aren’t taking transparency in state education funding seriously enough.

“There has been no sense of urgency with districts on the cusp of spending billions of dollars,” said Vincent Stewart, the senior managing director for education for the nonprofit Children Now. “It’s more important now than ever, with billions of dollars more in public education, that there be oversight and accountability.”

There is no central repository for districts’ financial documents that detail how they spend state and federal funding. Districts are required to publish online their Local Control and Accountability Plans, or LCAPs, which school districts update annually to show how they will spend money they get from the Local Control Funding Formula. Some post it prominently, others bury it. Some counties’ offices of education post districts’ LCAPs, while some don’t.

Gov. Gavin Newsom included a portion of $450,000 in the 2020-21 state budget to build a statewide LCAP web portal. It was part of a deal Newsom made with then-state Sen. Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, to mandate more transparency in tracking unspent funding formula money districts receive for low-income, English learners, foster and homeless youths. That money, called “supplemental” and “concentration” funding, totals $10 billion annually.

But the language in the budget was vague on how sophisticated the portal would be. Would it simply be a place to post the accountability plans, or, as the advocacy groups want, would it become a more ambitious and useful searchable database that would enable researchers, school officials and the public to compare data over time and among districts? The language implied that the latter would also be the Legislature’s intent.

The budget specified that the San Joaquin County Office of Education would do the work because it has done related projects. But the first step would be to hire someone for $50,000 to conduct “stakeholder” sessions for suggestions on what the portal’s design and the database should look like.

A year later, no further work has been done. “It feels like, again, we’ve hit a wall,” said Sarah Lillis, executive director of Teach Plus, a statewide organization that develops leadership skills among teachers.

In a statement, Daniel Thigpen, the deputy superintendent for the California Department of Education, insisted that the department “has made this project a priority since the budget was enacted.”

“Despite the widespread impacts of a pandemic that has stretched beyond a year, our contract with the San Joaquin County Office of Education is nearly complete,” he said. The county will soon post applications to lead the public engagement.

Thigpen said it would be speculative to estimate when the project would go online because the feedback from the process would determine the progress and timing.

First-term Sen. Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, in April introduced Senate Bill 3, which would have expedited the process by requiring that the Education Department develop the portal by January 2022. It would have required a tracking mechanism to report the types of services that districts fund with supplemental and concentration money. It would have made allocating money to districts under the funding formula conditional on submitting the report.

“We want a tracking system so that we can know, what are we doing with all these funds that we’ve granted school districts and who’s having the most success? Where are we seeing that supplemental and concentration funds are doing the most good?” Caballero said.

Under former Gov. Jerry Brown, who championed the funding formula, and under Newsom, the Department of Finance, as well as organizations representing school boards and administrators, have opposed categorizing school district expenses in ways that could make cross-district comparisons of expenditures easier. They contend standardizing expenses could erode local control and prompt intrusion by the Legislature.

That could partly explain why the bill never gained traction, although the Legislature limited non-pandemic related legislation this year. For whatever reason, Caballero’s bill never got a hearing.

In the spring, Children Now and Teach Plus were among two dozen organizations that called on the Senate and Assembly budget committees to include in the state budget an additional $450,000 that they anticipate would be needed to complete a full-blown, comprehensive portal and database examining district expenses and progress toward meeting goals in the LCAPs.

Without the extra money now, the development of the portal would take at least an additional year, Lillis said. “We don’t want this to be just about a collection of PDFs. We actually want it to be a usable tool.”

There are few requirements for districts and charter schools to publicly report and post how they will spend federal and state Covid aid. June 1 was the deadline for districts to complete a form spelling out how they would spend $4.6 billion in one-time state money on expanded learning opportunities, such as tutoring and a longer school day, as well as summer school. The Legislature required districts to seek spending recommendations from the public, but there will be no state monitoring of the spending or a mandate to publish the information.

A coalition of student advocacy organizations is urging the Legislature to require that all Covid spending reports be included in LCAP updates so that the public can get a total picture of how billions of dollars fit together on behalf of students. That hasn’t been the case so far, they wrote in a May letter to legislative leaders.

“For education equity advocates, the 2020-21 school year has become synonymous with lack of fiscal transparency and accountability in light of the upheaval to our educational system wrought by the pandemic, including lax oversight and loosening of reporting requirements,” they wrote.

Including all state and federal spending reports in the LCAP would, in turn, lead to their inclusion in the portal once it is finished. Another $450,000 to speed up the project would equal about 0.001% of the $50 billion that districts will spend. That would be a small price for more accountability, they say.

To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.

Share Article

Comments (2)

Leave a Comment

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

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. SD Parent 5 days ago5 days ago

    Sacramento leaders have gutted LCFF and the LCAP and have not delivered what they promised. Since the inception of LCFF and the LCAP, funding for education has increased, but transparency and accountability have all not materialized. If "local control" were working, then the state would be showing meaningful improvements in student achievement. Instead, "local control" is used as a shield by school districts and employee unions to thwart virtually any accountability. In fact, … Read More

    Sacramento leaders have gutted LCFF and the LCAP and have not delivered what they promised. Since the inception of LCFF and the LCAP, funding for education has increased, but transparency and accountability have all not materialized. If “local control” were working, then the state would be showing meaningful improvements in student achievement.

    Instead, “local control” is used as a shield by school districts and employee unions to thwart virtually any accountability. In fact, the LCAP no longer even requires school districts to specify how much supplemental and concentration grant funding it spends on its actions – it has just one section where it’s supposed to explain how it uses those funds to provide supplemental services to the targeted students. Without meaningful accountability, it’s no wonder that student achievement has remained largely stagnant.

    Given that history, it will be no surprise if the massive, additional funding for student recovery from the pandemic has little impact on student outcomes. The only hope is if Sacramento leaders recognize their past mistakes and create meaningful accountability for all educational spending. If not, the state should just drop the pretense of the LCAP by eliminating the charade.

  2. Brenda Lebsack 7 days ago7 days ago

    Thank you for this article. Bottom line is, with the mass increase of educational funding, there is also a mass decrease in transparency, oversight and accountability, Those are disastrous combinations. However this lack of transparency and accountability to taxpayers is showing up in other areas of public education too. SB 217 is a proposed transparency bill. This bill would provide greater on-line access to parents concerning controversial curriculum. However, the … Read More

    Thank you for this article. Bottom line is, with the mass increase of educational funding, there is also a mass decrease in transparency, oversight and accountability, Those are disastrous combinations. However this lack of transparency and accountability to taxpayers is showing up in other areas of public education too. SB 217 is a proposed transparency bill. This bill would provide greater on-line access to parents concerning controversial curriculum. However, the California School Board Association opposed this required transparency to parents. Their reasons were:
    1) It’s too costly for districts to provide this transparency.
    2) It could violate copyright laws.
    3) Parents can already set up appointments to see hardcopy materials on-site.

    As a former school board member and current teacher, I am here to say these are the most bogus reasons I have ever heard. Why? 1) There is a windfall of funding coming into districts right now, but according to the CSBA, transparency to taxpaying parents (the customers who pay for public education) is the lowest financial priority for districts 2) During long distance learning, most materials (if not all) have been available on-line, so copyright laws should not be an issue. 3) Requiring parents to set up an appointment with the school or district to view materials on-site rather than viewing them on-line via a website, is a huge hurdle for parents.

    CSBA, whose purpose is to help trustees better serve their constituents, showed their true colors by opposing this transparency bill. Just as this “web portal” to show the public how districts are spending money is a very low priority to educational bureaucrats, showing the public “what is being taught” to their children, via convenient web access, is also taboo. This aversion for transparency by “those in charge” should be a big red flag for those flipping the bill.