In the realm of education funding reform, the debate revolves around how to fairly distribute financial resources among districts. While base revenue per student usually remains consistent across districts, additional funding aims to offset the varying costs of education. California's approach, through Brown's LCFF, uses student weights to consider poverty, language learning, and grade levels. States explore various methods to include cost factors: categorical programs, block grants, pupil weights, and direct adjustments to the foundation amount. Each method has its merits and downsides, reflecting the challenge policymakers face in deciding the most effective route for equitable allocation. The discussion focuses on shifting from categorical programs to weighted students or adjusted foundation levels, emphasizing that such changes could yield better outcomes. However, concerns persist about removing categorical restrictions, fearing a potential loss of funding for vital programs like adult education or arts. The tension lies between local district autonomy and statewide priorities, raising questions about governance and whether setting educational priorities should be centralized or decentralized. Policymakers aim to strike a balance between offering district flexibility while ensuring effective resource utilization, with growing advocacy for an accountability-driven approach over categorical funding enforcement.

The primary aim of state finance systems across the U.S. is to achieve equalization, especially in states with local school funding under legal scrutiny. California’s current revenue limit and Governor Brown’s proposed formula both follow the traditional foundation state-aid model. In this structure, state aid per pupil is calculated as the foundation amount minus the required tax rate multiplied by assessed property wealth per pupil. Determining the foundation amount involves historical, political, and cost-based considerations. California’s current system heavily relies on historical expenditure levels from the 1970s, adjusted for inflation and equalization. Brown's proposal seems influenced by state average revenue limits after budget-induced cuts. Setting the foundation amount based on the actual cost of education remains a point of contention. California’s approach, compared to other states, tends to lag in per-pupil spending despite achieving equalization post-Serrano. States often adopt foundation formulas, aiming to increase spending in poorer districts ('leveling up'), yet California's spending remains lower on average. The ongoing debate emphasizes balancing actual educational costs, political feasibility, and historical context. Brown’s proposed base amounts, while lower than past estimates for California's educational needs, are not significantly different from those in other states using the foundation formula. However, comparing base amounts across states requires understanding that these figures represent the minimum cost to educate students without additional needs or district-specific characteristics.

In the discourse surrounding Governor Brown’s proposed “Local Control Funding Formula” (LCFF), the "School Finance" series aims to dissect long-debated issues prevalent in school finance, exploring known and unknown facets. While delving into specifics of the funding formula in future posts, the series initiates with a retrospective perspective on California’s educational funding evolution. It outlines the simplicity but inherent complexity of the current system, rooted in district revenue limits and categorical aids. Historic milestones like Serrano v. Priest and Prop 13 reshaped the state's funding landscape, emphasizing equity but excluding targeted funds from equalization discussions. Notably, the series emphasizes the evolution towards equitable distribution through foundation state-aid formulas, similar to Brown’s proposed model. It highlights the trade-offs between centralized funding, equal distribution, and local control, presenting Brown’s formula as offering enhanced spending flexibility by replacing categorical programs with cost-specific weights. The series underscores that while California’s move aligns with existing models, empirical insights should guide policy decisions for the welfare of its students.

In examining the state of gifted and talented education (GATE), the impact of financial strains on these programs in California becomes apparent. During budget constraints, districts often slash funding for GATE, leading to drastic program reductions. Despite the belief that gifted students can excel without additional resources, international assessments, like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), reveal American gifted students underperform globally, notably in math and science. This underperformance might stem from the inequitable funding landscape where the average district receives minimal state support ($3.38 per pupil), leaving only a minority with additional funding. Advocating for increased GATE funding seeks to rectify disparities rather than create inequality. The present funding discrepancies result in a form of horizontal inequity, suggesting that access to resources shouldn't hinge on a district's wealth. Encouraging uniform opportunities for gifted students, regardless of district economic status, aligns more with equitable education principles.

California's education funding system, laden with layered regulations akin to geological strata, restricts innovation and flexibility. Governor Jerry Brown's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) proposes a significant overhaul, consolidating scattered funds into a flexible per-pupil grant. This reform aims to empower educators by freeing them from rigid spending rules, shifting focus from compliance to achieving student goals. Additionally, the plan directs extra resources to schools supporting disadvantaged students, offering supplementary aid based on the level of need. Notably, the proposal doesn't reduce funding but allocates more to districts facing greater challenges. The reformation aspires to create a fairer, more efficient, and innovative education finance system, paving the way for a more promising educational landscape in California.

In the post-World War II era, community colleges expanded significantly, initially tasked with providing higher education access to broader populations. However, from the 1970s, fiscal constraints led to reduced state funding, creating competition with other priorities like criminal justice. This shift resulted in declining support for community colleges, contrasting sharply with increased investment in incarceration. The repercussions of this budgetary shift are evident. Recent studies show that while community colleges significantly boosted local employment during periods reliant on state funding, more recent years marked by rising tuition fees and decreased appropriations saw a decline in their employment impact. Ironically, where community colleges maintained low tuition rates, an unexpected inverse relationship between their presence and local employment growth emerged. Despite the soaring demand for community colleges, they face constraints and are compelled to operate with limited resources, compromising both educational opportunities and their contributions to local employment. A recent study advocates for a reprioritization towards community colleges and other postsecondary educational opportunities, urging states to reconsider their allocation of resources to bolster educational access and promote rural employment growth.

In response to overcrowding, LAUSD invested $20 billion in 130+ new schools, effectively easing overcrowding and modernizing infrastructure. Researchers investigate if these new facilities affected student achievement. Elementary students who switched schools experienced increased annual growth in standardized test scores, particularly in language arts and math, regardless of ethnicity or meal assistance. However, this benefit wasn't observed for high schoolers. Those from severely overcrowded schools saw more significant improvements after switching, suggesting relief from overcrowding was the primary factor. Interestingly, nearby students in existing schools also benefited, despite not switching schools, indicating broader positive effects. Surprisingly, construction costs and physical amenities didn't consistently correlate with achievement gains. Moreover, teacher qualifications within new facilities showed minimal influence. The study delves into LAUSD District 6, revealing the intricate changes in student migration and school diversity spurred by this massive construction project.

The educational landscape in the U.S. features a significant number of English Language Learners (ELLs), yet their funding and educational needs remain understudied. Laws mandate providing resources for ELLs, but research on funding for this group is limited. Costing out studies, used to determine educational costs, lack focus on ELLs, despite their exponential growth. Four primary methodologies assess these costs, but they inconsistently include ELLs. Current research suggests states allocate insufficient funds for K–12 education, and ELLs are not adequately addressed in costing out studies. The literature emphasizes the need for adapted methodologies that account for the complex and diverse needs of ELL students. In California, a hub for ELL education, the discussion around a weighted funding formula prompts consideration of how to incorporate ELL needs. Though there's no definitive funding model for ELLs, existing research offers insights for policymakers, stressing the necessity of considering these students' multifaceted backgrounds and educational requirements. Achieving equity in ELL education necessitates refining costing out methodologies to better understand and cater to their diverse needs. Addressing these complexities is essential to ensure ELLs receive equitable resources for an adequate education.

The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) conducted surveys from 2010 to 2012, gathering data on California school districts' response to recent state actions affecting their budgets. Echoing RAND's findings, the LAO observed widespread use of categorical flexibility, with districts shifting Tier 3 funds toward general purposes. Over 90% of 2012 respondents noted that categorical flexibility facilitated budget development, aligning with RAND's conclusion that it helped maintain fiscal solvency, staff retention, and core educational programs. These findings highlight the impact of the state's budget crisis on districts' use of Tier 3 flexibility. While some advocate for increased local discretion over K–12 funds to encourage school-based decision-making, fiscal constraints and Tier 3 limitations suggest a different reality. Despite challenges, district feedback from both surveys indicates a preference for expanded near-term categorical flexibility and the permanent elimination of most existing categorical programs. The surveys imply that recent flexibility provisions, amid significant budget reductions, have reshaped districts' budgeting and program prioritization. The current disconnect between Tier 3 funding allocations and student needs underscores the necessity for fundamental restructuring in California's K–12 funding system, contingent upon the state's ability to monitor student achievement and ensure accountability.

California grapples with crucial decisions on school funding allocation, debating between categorical funding and flexible use of funds. In 2007–08, 40% of state funds for K–12 education were categorical, but a 20% reduction and removal of restrictions from 40 programs (Tier 3) in the following year allowed districts more fiscal flexibility, providing a unique opportunity to observe outcomes. A 2010 study by RAND Corporation, UC Berkeley and Davis, and San Diego State University assessed the impact. The survey involved chief financial officers in 223 districts. The findings indicate that most districts used the newfound flexibility to balance budgets and preserve existing programs rather than initiate new initiatives. The flexibility allowed reallocation of categorical aid money into general funds, affecting specific programs. Teacher professional development and general-purpose school improvement funding were commonly reallocated. Notably, major categorical aid decisions were predominantly made by district office staff and superintendents, not school principals. The fiscal environment, marked by an 18% reduction in state funding since the recession, strongly influenced allocation decisions. Researchers conclude that the hope for widespread innovation through local control proved unrealistic, although flexibility allowed districts to respond adeptly to changing fiscal conditions during a budget crisis.

Assemblywoman Julia Brownley has persistently advocated for substantial changes in California's school finance system. Previous bills aimed at reform, such as AB 2159 and AB 8, focused on a weighted student formula but faced setbacks due to concerns about effectiveness and the Governor's veto. Her current proposal, AB 18, consolidates school funding into three categories: base, targeted equity, and quality instruction. While considered a step towards a weighted student formula, AB 18 maintains existing funding levels for each district rather than establishing uniform base and weight amounts across districts. The bill lacks provisions for equity adjustments, perpetuating irrational disparities in funding allocation among districts. Brownley acknowledges this flaw but understands the immense challenge in altering the amounts of funds distributed to districts. AB 18 presents improvements in simplicity and flexibility for districts but fails to rectify existing allocation disparities. While proposing a structural overhaul, it overlooks the fundamental issue of irrational variations in funding distribution across districts, which remains unaddressed in the current proposal.

California stands at a critical budget juncture as Governor Brown prepares to reveal his revised budget. Promised tax extensions hinge on Republican approval for a vote, yet their refusal propels an all-cuts budget forward. Harsh education cuts loom, potentially slashing school time, enlarging class sizes, and obstructing college access. Both Democratic and Republican legislators are poised to oppose these cuts. However, the deadlock persists. Republican resistance to tax hikes remains unmoved, and budgetary strategies to balance previous budgets are nearly depleted. Californians resist both tax increases and educational cuts, creating an impasse. Three potential outcomes emerge: public outcry may pressure Republicans to safeguard schools, persuasion might sway enough Republicans to break ranks and approve tax extensions, or the state might face an all-cuts budget. While public discontent could sway Republicans, political maneuvers or an all-cuts scenario seem more plausible. Education faces dire consequences, but change may only come after enduring the Governor's grim forecast for some time.

The Interim Status Report on district finances reveals 13 districts in a dire state, unable to meet financial obligations for the current or upcoming fiscal years. Another 97 districts face similar risks, though down from the previous year. This report doesn't factor in potential revenue loss from the proposed budget, which could exacerbate financial strain. Federal stimulus funds, particularly the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), substantially aided districts. These funds, allocated across various programs like Title I and IDEA, were most impactful between 2008-09 and 2009-10 but were meant to be spent by September 2011. An analysis of funding distribution unveiled that districts with higher poverty rates received more Tier 3 categorical and stimulus funds. While this aligned with the intention to mitigate Tier 3 program cuts, the ongoing cuts combined with the cessation of stimulus funds disproportionately affect poorer districts. As these districts require more resources, the loss of stimulus funding could significantly hinder them, raising concerns about equity in education resources.

The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) adopted Vision 2020, focusing on central office support for schools. This plan aims to guide district work through a Community-Based School Reform Model, allowing flexibility in instructional strategies while providing central office support and maintaining accountability. This emphasizes the district office's role in aiding schools' improvement but lacks specific details. Reforming the central office goes beyond restructuring; it demands a fundamental shift toward direct support for learning. To achieve this, a shared theory of action around learning must guide resource allocation. Additionally, enhancing data literacy in both the central office and schools is crucial for informed decision-making. Moreover, differentiating support and building capacities across schools is necessary, acknowledging that capacity-building isn't just one-way. This requires a targeted approach and access to expertise both within and outside the district office. For genuine reform, collaborative learning partnerships between the central office and schools are pivotal, beyond regulatory relationships. Examining the district's improvement vision through a broader lens that values the role of the district office is essential. The success of SDUSD’s Vision 2020 hinges on understanding the larger frame beyond focusing solely on individual schools.

Amid budget cuts, schools are adopting unconventional measures for funding. Anaheim Unified School District employs GPS devices for students with unexcused absences, costing $8 daily per student, aiming to retain funding lost at $35 per absent student. Simultaneously, traditional schools switch to charters for increased funding and flexibility, impacting public schools financially. The efficacy of these initiatives on academic outcomes remains uncertain. Budget-driven decisions might harm education quality and overlook underlying issues. A Pepperdine University study exposes disparities in California’s education spending, revealing a decline in direct classroom spending despite overall funding increases. This highlights the urgency for comprehensive school finance reform, sparking discussions among policymakers, scholars, and the public. Optimizing spending efficiency becomes crucial to mitigate adverse effects during economic downturns. Engaging in informed dialogues and research is vital to avoid hasty, ineffective solutions, such as mandating GPS tracking for funding. California’s ongoing budget challenges call for a strategic reassessment of school finance policies. A collaborative effort involving stakeholders can pave the way for impactful reforms, ensuring optimal resource utilization without compromising educational standards amidst financial constraints.

California's proposed massive cuts to higher education, slashing $500 million from UC and CSU and $400 million from community colleges, will raise fees, reduce courses, and limit enrollment. Chancellor Jack Scott predicts turning away 350,000 community college students, significantly impacting the 45% of first-generation learners. CSU's 35% first-generation population also faces constraints. These cuts affect crucial support programs, services, and class availability, particularly for counseling and childcare. Wealthier UC students shifting to CSUs may intensify competition, disadvantaging vulnerable students. Public dissatisfaction, highlighted by a Public Policy Institute of California study, stresses concerns about affordability and borrowing. Possible solutions, like a sliding-scale tuition system based on family income, supported by 72% of Californians, aim to ease access barriers. Discussions must protect these students and explore strategies ensuring their access and success in higher education, securing California's future.

The focus on John Deasy's role as a "reformer" and political alliances obscures the deep-seated challenges facing the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Despite Gov. Jerry Brown's budget showing no severe cuts for education, the district confronts fiscal and demographic pressures that could lead to its collapse. LAUSD grapples with declining enrollment due to shifting demographics, losing over 135,000 students in the past decade, leading to a drastic reduction in revenue. Simultaneously, expenses for special education and healthcare have surged significantly, adding financial strain. Special education demands more costly services, while health care costs have risen by 71% since 2002. While potential state revenue decreases may slightly mitigate the impact, the district's survival hinges on Governor Brown's budget approval and voter support for tax extensions. Historical research shows that past reform efforts in the district faced fiscal challenges, indicating that political maneuvers won't alter this reality. Effective changes in education will rely on hard-working individuals navigating these tough financial constraints, echoing the ongoing struggle amid financial limitations for innovative educational initiatives.

A new PPIC report highlights the challenge of directing resources to needy schools in California. It suggests a weighted-student funding formula for fairer resource allocation, emphasizing equal base funding per student with additional support for diverse needs. Yet, the short-term hurdle lies in the political demand to maintain current district funding levels, hindering policy changes. Proposals ensure no district loses funds during reforms, aiming to minimize resistance. However, with statewide financial setbacks, debates arise over defining "hold harmless"—maintaining reduced funding or restoring previous levels. Governor-elect Jerry Brown's backing for this model improves the likelihood of reform, but achieving equitable support for vulnerable students faces political negotiation, making the realization of improved education funding for those in need a distant objective.

Governor Brown’s focus on California’s budget crisis emphasized looming challenges for the education system. Despite years of cuts predominantly affecting schools, further deterioration is expected. Reforming education faces a major hurdle: Californians desire an elite system but resist higher taxes. Current Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) surveys reveal this gap between citizens wanting quality education without funding sacrifices. Brown’s imminent severe budget aims to highlight the disparity between expected educational standards and the willingness to pay for them. The January 2011 budget will depict the state's education system under strain. The crucial test lies in whether this realization motivates support for increased taxes to fund desired education, determining subsequent policy changes in Brown’s early tenure.

The California Teachers Association's preliminary assessment of the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) showed positive outcomes, yet it is a disappointing occasion for two key reasons. Firstly, QEIA's implementation coincided with severe budget cuts in California, limiting its intended significant boost for struggling schools to merely shielding them from the fiscal crisis rather than driving transformative change. Secondly, QEIA's evaluation, designed as a quasi-experiment, lacks the essential randomized assignment of funds, hindering any conclusive understanding of the impact of these resources. The evaluation's ongoing focus on case studies won't offer substantial insight into QEIA's effectiveness, portraying it as a missed chance for impactful educational improvement.

In education polling, people often rate their local schools highly but give lower scores to the overall public school system. This gap in trust between citizens and the broader system poses a significant issue in California due to its vastness and reliance on state resources. Rebuilding trust in the public school system is crucial for garnering necessary political and financial support. PACE’s recent seminar showcased Strategic School Funding for Results (SSFR), a project in districts like Twin Rivers, Pasadena, and Los Angeles Unified. It aims to grant more autonomy over budgets to individual schools while increasing accountability for resource use and student performance. This shift might enhance transparency in fund allocation but doesn’t solve the broader issue. While boosting confidence in local leadership, concerns about resource usage elsewhere in the system persist. California’s real challenge lies in reconnecting schools with their communities beyond merely enhancing resource efficiency.

In a challenging economic climate, only two of seventeen proposed parcel tax measures for school funding passed this year. Parcel taxes, flat taxes per property parcel, offer districts a means to raise additional revenue for specified purposes. While historically, California districts have had some success with parcel taxes, recent elections have seen varying results. Between 1983 and 2009, voters approved about half of the 486 parcel tax elections, primarily favoring smaller, higher-income communities. However, only a fraction of districts attempted to pass parcel taxes, with success rates skewed toward wealthier areas. The success of these taxes, even under different voting thresholds, remains unpredictable as altering the threshold might impact voter turnout and campaign spending. This year's rejection of most parcel tax proposals underscores the difficulty districts face in garnering local revenue, emphasizing the limited control California districts have over their funding sources.

he recent conference, co-hosted by PACE and Pivot Learning Partners in Southern California, aimed to revamp teacher evaluations. Current evaluations lack substance, often offering superficial, pre-announced assessments that don't aid improvement. This approach doesn't align with enhancing schools or student performance. Challenges abound: effective evaluations require a broader educational strategy involving recruitment, support systems, and professional development, all currently lacking depth in California. Moreover, there's a lack of consensus on fair evaluation systems due to the state's low administrator-to-student ratio and inadequate assessment criteria. Despite these hurdles, the conference showcased a shared acknowledgment of flaws and a collective drive among districts to seek alternative solutions. This unity sparks hope for a more informative evaluation system supporting teachers and school effectiveness. Yet, achieving this demands comprehensive reforms that intertwine evaluation with broader educational enhancement strategies.

A recent LA Times article indicates positive views among Californians on immigrants, with 48% seeing them as beneficial and 59% supporting residency for long-employed undocumented workers. It urges a reevaluation of laws like AB540 and the California DREAM Act, emphasizing their economic advantages. Despite debates about costs, recent reports suggest that the actual enrollment of undocumented students in California's higher education may be as low as 0.23%. This challenges assumptions about financial burdens. Given California's immigration impact, the incoming governor must advocate actively for comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act.