May Revision 2013 Escalon Unified School District

1 Themes for the May Revision Economic growth, though the pace is slow, and the passage of Proposition 30 provide the state with more revenue in But the Governor projects slower growth for The level of Proposition 98 is increased by the higher revenues Much of the increase is used to: quicken the pace of deferral buy backs fund a one-time augmentation for Common Core State Standards The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) remains the centerpiece of the Governor’s State Budget proposal Many mechanical and policy issues remain unresolved There is plenty of work left to be done by the Legislature within the next 10 days in order to get a budget passed by June 15 th

2 The May Revision in Broad Strokes Most major policy issues remain as proposed in January The state recognizes a substantial increase of $4.5 billion in revenues for , most of which are committed by statute to Proposition 98 The Governor has the responsibility for determining how much of the revenue is one time or ongoing and then adjusting his State Budget proposal accordingly Higher revenues are good news, but the real story is in the distribution system for education funding The LCFF provides widely different increases No district loses funding, but some don’t gain much

3 Major Proposals by the Governor Maintains the LCFF essentially as proposed in January Folds in most categorical programs (30+) Adds an additional $240 million (for a total of $1.9 billion) to fund the first year implementation of the LCFF Provides some relief for Adult Education and Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROC/P) Adds very restrictive accountability provisions Buys down deferrals faster than planned Buys down $1.6 billion more for , $900 million less for , for an overall increase of deferral buy down by $700 million

4 Major Proposals by the Governor Funds the CCSS (Common Core State Standards) implementation on a one-time basis $1 billion for Staff Development, Curriculum and Technology Must be spent in and Must have an approved plan in place Backfills the loss of federal special education funding due to sequestration $60.7 million

5 LCFF – K-3 CSR and CTE Adjustments Target entitlement calculation K-3 CSR (24 pupils maximum per-class target) and CTE adjustment FactorsK Base grants – $6,441$6,538$6,732$7,800 Adjustment factors11.23% CSR– – 2.8% CTE CSR, CTE amounts$723 –– $218

6 Revenue Limits or the LCFF? The Governor remains fully committed to implementing the LCFF in , indicating that opponents of his proposal would get “the battle of their lives” Nevertheless, the Senate has recommended that the LCFF implementation not occur until Revenue limits could prevail in , notwithstanding the Governor’s position The May Revision makes no reference to revenue limit funding No reference to the statutory cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) No reference to the % deficit factor Until state law is amended, however, revenue limits are the means by which state apportionment aid will be distributed to LEAs

7 Revenue Limits and the LCFF Today – the primary source of unrestricted funding comes from revenue limits Established in the 1970s, formed the basis for equalization of funding differences among school districts Since , revenue limits have been reduced more than 22% from the statutory entitlement Revenue limits still vary among school districts based on historical and state funding differences – most cluster around the average, but some are higher LCFF – would, at full implementation, fund every student at the same base rate Establishes the undeficited average BRL per ADA, adjusted for inflation, as the target All school district and charter school base grant funding will equalize to this level

8 Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) The actual statutory COLA for is 1.565% The LCFF does not fully fund COLAs during the seven-year implementation phase Instead the model provides COLA funding in proportion to the overall growth toward the district’s LCFF The budget provides funding equal to 11.75% growth toward the target ($1.9 billion) Districts will receive an effective COLA of just under 0.2% (11.75% of the 1.565% COLA)

9 Expenditure and Audit Requirements While the LCFF purports shifting spending control from the state to LEAs based on local needs and priorities, the accountability system implements strict expenditure requirements Supplemental and concentration grant funding must be spent in a manner that benefits students generating those additional funds Expenditure of funds must be proportional to the number of students at each school site LEAs may not spend less than they spent on these students in and must meet annual MOE requirements Once the LCFF is fully implemented, LEA must spend at least as much as they receive from base, supplemental, and concentration grant funds annually on these students To ensure compliance, an annual independent audit will verify that expenditure and proportionality requirements are met

10 Other Issues California still tied for 3 rd in the nation for highest unemployment rate (March 2013 statistics) Projection of slower growth for Personal income expected to increase 1.4% Bifercated state economy Inland regions have higher unemployment and ailing housing markets Coastal regions have relatively low unemployment, improving housing markets and higher average incomes. Deficit factor of % disappears with the implementation of the LCFF Federal Sequestration and long-term budget deficit Implementation of the Affordable Care Act

Questions?