Underprivileged schools would get more per-student funding than other schools across the state under a proposed budget unveiled Thursday by Gov. Jerry Brown.
“Our future depends not on across-the-board funding, but disproportionately funding those schools that have disproportionate challenges,” Brown said at a press conference.
He also said most categorical funding for schools should be eliminated and the money delivered more directly.
“As you go up the line you lose control and build bureaucracy,” the governor said. “We want to put the money into local schools, but create greater control.”
Brown also said the state's deficit is gone for the first time in years, adding it could reduce its debt substantially by 2016.
“The deficit's gone; the wall of debt remains,” Brown said, noting the state's $36 billion debt could be reduced to $4.3 billion by 2016.
The budget proposed by Brown also increases per-student funding for all levels of education; by the 2016-17 school year, K-12 schools would see a $2,681 increase in spending for each student. At the CSU and UC levels, spending would increase by about $2,000 and $2,500 by 2016-17, respectively.
What he was talking about was the "categorical funding" which includes the "State Comp Ed" funds (equal to the Fed's Title I - ESEA monies) and other "block grant" monies, these currently go through the district and have 10-20% taken off the top for district "central services" costs. by funding the schools directly (or setting a cap on central services) more funds could be used at the site level for interventions or supplemental support. The School Site Council (half of which are elected parents) set in place for the Title I funds would be the regulatory committee to oversee the use of funds.
Brown did talk about his wish that "Underprivileged schools would get more per-student funding than other schools across " In this context the term "Underprivilaged" related to the poverty index of the families who attend a school - this is most often calculated by looking at the percentage of students on the federal Free and reduced lunch program. When you look at a school's API/AYP scores this would be the "SocioEconomically Disadvantaged" subgroup. His idea is that often times schools with a higher poverty index have additional challenges to raising student achievement and that additional funds should go to them. This is also the idea behind the Federal Title I program under the NCLB/ESEA program. A school must have a least 35-40% on Free/Reduced lunch to get any Title I funds. Brown would just make this part of the ADA - and so open up more options for how it can be used.
There will be trade-off made between better pay for staff, on the one hand, and more staff and programs on the other. We need extensive public discussions on this subject, at local school board meetings, before commitments are made in closed door bargaining sessions.
It is the middle class districts that end up holding the short straw, financially. In San Mateo County, there are a half dozen Districts that have total income (per student) of under $8000. There are 10 Districts with income spread between$8500 and $11,300 per student. There are another 7 Districts with income per student ranging from $13,000 to $18,000. The blue-collar districts are all buried in that bottom 7,200 to 7900 per kid. The high poverty districts tend to be in the $9-11K range. The rich are the rich. So if the money is going to impoverished schools, we'll still be starving the middle class districts.
The teachers in the district we attend has not had a raise in 8+ years...
My point is that if disproportionate funds are to be poured into disproportionately challenged schools then we must make sure that the money results in real progress in student performance. Otherwise we are wasting money the State continues to pour into them. The way to determine this is if students significantly improve in performance each year they receive this funding. The way schools are judged on performance is through statewide test scores. This places the burden upon local school administrators and teachers to find ways to improve student performance. There are many examples and organizations that can help them find ways. Note that I am emphasizing Improvement, NOT getting the top scores in the State. Disproportionate funding must be tied to performance. Otherwise what is the point of continuing to give disproportionately challenged schools disproportionately more money each year? Do you have a better suggestion to make sure that this disproportionate funding is in fact improving the education of students it is intended to help?
or you could just read the full info on the CDE website at http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yr13rel6.asp and the link at the bottom to the actual budget pages...
In affluent neighborhoods, its easier to pass parcel taxes. San Marino, for example, has over $10k/student per year in unrestricted revenue, whereas its 'poorer' neighbor's (PUSD) is about $6k/student per year (near the average for all CA districts). In contrast PUSD's restricted revenue is about double SM's, but that's not enough to make up for the difference. SM still gets more funding from the state, feds and local. In addition, there have been studies on the impact of income level on private fundraising. One study I read said that low poverty schools (defined as lower than 33% F&R) raise on average $100k/year. In contrast, high poverty schools (defined as higher than 66% F&R) raise on average $5k/year. And finally, one of the impacts on districts of recent budget issues has been the yearly 'deferral' of revenue limit funding from the state (last year 28% of revenue limit funds were deferred--pre prop 30 anyway). Affluent district receive a lower percentage of their funding from this source (some really rich ones even none at all). That means a disproportionate impact of budget cuts on higher poverty schools. Add to that the 'penalties' of NCLB on lower scoring (mostly poverty schools)... blah blah blah..
When support from home is lacking the schools / teachers have to use more funds to make up the difference. Browns idea is to shift some of the categorical (not general fund ADA) to schools in need of extra support. I agree there needs to be monitoring to be sure the extra funds are used in a way that builds success in the kids. I also hope he doesn't take or lower the ADA amount from places doing well now, other wise it ends up being a new "tax" on the parents to make up the difference.
http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_pageid=33,1122748&_dad=ptl&_schema=PTL_EP
In that context, being blissfully ignorant of the status of the Supe's contract seems remarkable.
And by the way, the agenda says something to the effect that consolidation=closing. As if we don't know that already...