California’s Equalization Project: Formula or Experiment? The partnership between state legislature and local school districts began with a voter uproar!

The Equalization Process  Serrano Part 1 & Part 2  Proposition 13  Gann Limit Limiting the ability of state and local government to raise revenues for schools and eliminating the relationship between per pupil spending and property tax revenues

No Free Lunch  Therefore state aid must increase to compensate for lost local tax revenues.  The state has the full responsibility to apportion to local districts using the ADA enrollment data - based on past funding, which is adjusted annually (Proposition 98).  How do these districts survive?

No Free Lunch  Total ADA funds - $10,593 Student spending - $ 8,074 Non student spending - $ 2,519  General purpose ADA funds - $7,384 Student spending - $ 7,137 Non student spending - $ 247

No Free Lunch  Categorical Aid - for programs to help the disadvantaged  Basic Aid Urban Districts - Critically overcrowded schools (COS) & Multiyear education schools (MTYRE) Districts with a high percentage of racial and ethnic makeup Poverty District grade span is greater

Funding Sources 2004/05  State funding - 67%  Local funding - 22%  Federal funding - 9%  Other - 2% Special taxes Lottery

Average District K-12  Facilities  Salaries and benefits  Services not related to instruction  Development and consulting  Special education  English Learners (EL’s) & Linguistic Minority (LM’s)  Illegal immigration

Facilities  State Expenditures (SFP) for new construction and modernization by voter approved statewide bonds  District Expenditures (GO) via voter approved general obligation bonds  Priority goes to COS and MTYRE schools.

Facilities  Revenues State billion USD District G.O. Bonds billion USD Developer Fees billion USD Mello-Roos/SFID -.7 billion USD Other billion USD  Total: 71.2 billion USD

Average District K-12  Salaries and benefits - $4,521  Services not related to instruction - $800  Development and consulting - $751

Average District K-12  Special Education - $ 1,035  English Learners (EL’s) & Linguistic Minority (LM’s) - not specified  Illegal immigrant education - not specified

Hot Topics for California  Emergency immigration/refugee status and illegal immigration have placed a heavy burden on the California educational system without means to pay for extended services  The results of Phyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982), set a precedent that children of illegal immigrants should be given the right to a public education while they are waiting for deportation proceedings to finish (TCCRI, p. 30, 2006).

Hot Topics for California  In review of the latest documents on the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) that has taken effect from July 1, 2005 until the present, this concern is valid because of the changes that have tried to align IDEA with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act that is coming up for reauthorization this year.

Hot Topics for California In accordance with IDEA & NCLB, resources for this vulnerable group should include: Linking records with migratory children among states Their right to child find services Additional academic behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment, And part C options for early childhood transition. [613(a)(9); 614(b)(5); 613(f)(1); 618(d)(1, 2)(B); 635(c)(1); 637(a)(10)]

Hot Topics for California  California spent 7.7 billion USD on resources for children of illegal immigrants  Classrooms should be built at a rate of 16 a day for the next 5 years to catch up and include this vulnerable group  Special Education services are often funded as an afterthought not taking into consideration culture differences, the severity of the disability, and the costs of smart inclusion principles that skew the average ADA per pupil apportion.  NCLB requirements often act independently of state standards and do not “fit” in the adequacy scheme for EL’s, LM’s, children of illegal immigrants, and children with disabilities.

Count the Costs by Factoring  District type - elementary, unified or high school  Percentage of Poverty EL’s, LM’s, and illegal immigration Children requiring special education services

Fiscal Health Examines:  Size  Enrollment or decline  Per pupil revenues  The relationship between money and academic performance to determine adequacy

IREPP Conclusions (2004/05)  Out of 984 districts in California, 941 need 50 % more funding to reach adequacy goals, which would mean an increase from billion to billion USD.  If that were the case (77.31 billion), California would still be woefully behind the highest spending states.

IREPP Conclusions (2004/05)  Replacing the apportionment formula with a new academic standards formula would ask the question: What resources do schools need to meet the API standard of 800? And not, how can we divide it all up according to per pupil ADA?

IREPP Conclusions (2004/05)  This formula would have to have a three pronged approach to meet the needs of California’s diverse population, unique needs of each child, define numeracy and literacy proficiency, affirm the strengths, and identify the weakness of each district. Special Education - SEEP & AIR formulas Immigration - reinventing instructional strategies Average student - narrow the achievement gap between the most vulnerable and the over achiever

Has California met its goal of adequacy and equalization?  A slice from a 12 piece pie will not hold up to a 6 piece pie, before the recipient begins to complain of hunger.  California is not growing fiscally at the rate of its student population!

Has California met its goal of adequacy and equalization?  California is not growing at the rate of the “needs” of its student population!  If a quarter of our school population is hidden because of immigration issues, how do we pay for that slice of the pie?

California’s Equalization Project: Formula or Experiment? The partnership between state legislature and local school districts is still battling the roar, as voters refuse to approve creative funding measures.

References  IREPP, (2007). Project summary - Getting down to facts: A research project examining California’s school governance and finance systems. Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.  (Studies: 1-7,10,14,17-22)