Tag: Local Control Funding Formula

PPIC’s Role in a Changing State

California is changing quickly and in ways that touch the lives of all of its residents. The state has enrolled millions of people in health insurance under the federal Affordable Care Act. It is moving ahead to expand the cap-and-trade program that is a cornerstone of AB 32, the landmark law mandating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

In K–12 education, California is implementing two sweeping policy changes at the same time. New English and math standards, called the Common Core, require big changes in what is taught in the classroom. A new school funding formula, the Local Control Funding Formula, gives districts increased flexibility over spending and provides extra money for disadvantaged students.

Historic changes are playing out in the corrections system as well. Realignment, which shifted responsibilities for many offenders from the state to the local level, has had a significant impact on the state, counties, and communities.

Amid these policy shifts, California is coping with a major drought that has focused attention on the state’s need to improve its water management.

These changes are also taking place in an election year—and California’s elections have also undergone major changes. This is the first election in which state constitutional officers, such as governor and controller, will be elected under the top-two primary system.

At PPIC we are focused on monitoring and analyzing the impact of these changes—both short and long term—and examining other steps the state can take to meet its critical challenges. In recent months, we have delivered objective, nonpartisan research on all of these topics. We plan to release many more publications in the months ahead. Our PPIC Statewide Survey will continue to give California residents a voice in the policy changes that affect them, as it has since 1998. The PPIC blog provides regular updates on the impact of the drought, as well as news and analysis on a range of policy topics from our experts.

Through our extensive outreach, we have hosted discussions on these important topics and more. We invited California’s two top legislative leaders to share their priorities for the upcoming session. At another recent event, the two secretary of state candidates talked about how they would improve elections and increase voter participation, if elected. Both of these events were webcast live to engage Californians from all over the state.

We encourage you to sign up for our announcements to learn about future events. We hope you’ll stay up to date with our publications and videos by signing up for our monthly e-bulletin, following us on social media, and subscribing to the PPIC blog.

As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions.

Governor Proposes Minor Changes to K-12 Funding Levels

The governor released the May revision of his 2014-15 budget yesterday. All told, the news was good. Revenues were modestly better than forecast in January—up about $850 million in the coming fiscal year. But due to the complexities of Proposition 98—the constitutional funding guarantee for schools and community colleges—the amount proposed for K-12 education fell slightly.

The governor’s plan for schools is mostly unchanged, however. The chart below illustrates per-pupil funding levels proposed in the May revision. Schools would receive about $8,800 for each student—an increase of $780 from 2013–14. The current estimate of per-pupil funding in 2013-14 is up slightly from the level estimated in January, providing a healthy $430 per student more than in 2012–13.

Most of the new funding in 2014–15 goes to pay for the new Local Control Funding Formula. As in the January budget proposal, the budget includes $4.5 billion, or about $750 per student, for the new funding formula. The three-part formula distributes funding using a base grant (that differs by grade span), a supplemental grant for disadvantaged students (low-income, English Learner, and foster care students), and a concentration grant for districts that serve above-average proportions of disadvantaged students.

The budget also provides $27 million to help districts administer new state tests. With the transition to the Common Core State Standards, new computer-based assessments are currently being field tested in California. Students take the new tests on computers linked to the internet, and the additional funding would help schools develop higher speed internet connections.

One final note: Governor Brown proposes to establish a Proposition 98 reserve in the future to protect against volatility in General Fund revenues. His proposed constitutional amendment creates a rainy day fund that would help buffer schools from the extreme boom and bust cycle of state revenues.

In addition, the governor appears to have established an approach to K-12 budgeting that helps protect state and school district finances from uncertainties in the estimating process. Because revenues—and school funding levels—are estimated a year in advance, the amount of resources available to schools changes throughout the year as the revenue picture becomes clear. To reduce risks to state and district budgets, the administration: ·

  • Makes relatively conservative revenue forecasts. Moderating the administration’s revenue estimates helps prevent the state from spending more than Proposition 98 requires. If actual revenues are higher than assumed, it makes the additional Proposition 98 funds available on a one-time basis to retire debts or pay for other one-time costs. ·
  • Builds more flexibility into annual K-12 budgets. The administration, for instance, proposes to spend about $1.5 billion in ongoing 2014–15 funds to retire one-time K–12 debts that were created during the recession. These one-time expenditures help protect district budgets, because debt repayment can be downsized if Proposition 98 funding does not reach its expected level, while district base budgets are left intact.

This approach requires restraint on the part of state policymakers and local educators. But the dividends—repaid debts and one-time funding for things like computer infrastructure—are also becoming more evident.

Engaging Parents in School Funding Decisions

A policy enacted last year—the Local Control Funding Formula—changes the way the state allocates money for K–12 schools. The new system is designed to address the needs of disadvantaged students. It also gives local districts more authority over spending decisions and holds them accountable for results. Beginning this year, school districts must develop accountability plans every three years describing how they will meet the goals and priorities of the new system.

Districts are required to seek input from parents while developing their accountability plans, the first of which must be adopted by July 1. The requirement to involve parents is loosely defined. At a minimum, districts must hold a public hearing prior to plan approval and convene a parent advisory committee. And districts are supposed to ensure parent representation of the groups the new formula is designed to help—English Learners, foster children, and lower-income students. But the policy does not outline how the feedback will be gathered and used.

In the latest PPIC Statewide Survey, the vast majority of Californians, including 85 percent of public school parents, consider parent involvement in the development of these plans very important.

How effective have districts’ outreach efforts been so far?

Many districts have already held meetings and forums to seek parent input, but according to our survey, 45 percent of public school parents say they have not received information from their child’s school or school district about how to become involved (52% say they have received information). This is despite nearly all saying they are at least somewhat interested in becoming involved (53% very interested, 38% somewhat interested).

Still, there is some evidence in these early stages that outreach attempts to parents of disadvantaged students are working. Latino public school parents (67% of whom took the survey in Spanish) are much more likely than whites to say they have received information about how to become involved (61% to 42%). Similarly, immigrant parents (61%) are much more likely than U.S.-born parents (43%) to say they have received information. And the share reporting that they received information grows as household income levels decline.

An overwhelming majority of parents would like their youngest child to earn a college degree or graduate degree, including at least seven in 10 Latinos (70%), immigrants (77%), and parents earning less than $80,000 annually (75% under $40,000, 82% $40,000 to under $80,000). These parent groups are also among the most likely to believe the Local Control Funding Formula will improve the academic achievement of English Learners and lower-income students. Engaging these key groups in designing ways to meet the central goal of the Local Control Funding Formula (namely, to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and others) is critical—especially given the educational hopes they express for their children.

Chart source: PPIC Statewide Survey: April 2014.

Trouble Ahead for Local School Ballot Measures?

This commentary first appeared on EdSource.org on April 30, 2014.

The elections this year offer the first statewide look at Californians’ willingness to raise revenue for their local schools since passage of Proposition 30, the tax initiative to benefit education that voters passed in November 2012. While it’s too early to know how many local school districts will test the waters by placing a construction bond or parcel tax on the ballot, there are undercurrents in our new survey that spell trouble ahead for local school ballot measures. In short, the public’s sense that schools are in crisis has diminished.

Our annual PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and Education shows that likely voters view fiscal conditions in education as generally improving. The proportion who say that the state budget situation is a “big problem” for California’s K–12 public education has dropped by 10 points—from 72 percent to 62 percent—between April 2012 and today. More importantly, the proportion of likely voters saying that the level of current state funding for their local public schools is “not enough” has also dropped by 10 points between April 2012 and today—from 59 percent to 49 percent. In other words, the likely voters who currently view state funding of their local schools as problematic now make up less than a majority.

In our recent poll, 55 percent of likely voters would vote yes if there was a local school bond on the ballot—just barely meeting the minimum passage level. By contrast, 48 percent of likely voters would vote yes on a local school parcel tax—falling far short of the two thirds needed to pass.

It is important to note that likely voters who are public school parents are bucking these statewide trends: a majority of them view state funding for their local public school as inadequate, and over 60 percent say they would support a local school bond and a local school parcel tax this year. But our poll finds that public school parents make up less than 30 percent of the likely voters who will determine the ballot outcomes.

Since 2001, the statewide passage rate for local school bonds has been 81 percent and for local school parcel taxes, 60 percent, as noted by CaliforniaCityFinance.com and EdSource. This year, those rates may fall. Alternatively, there may be fewer local school ballot measures this year as funding proponents focus on a smaller set of school districts with voter profiles that offer favorable odds for passing these measures. For instance, our poll finds majority support for local school bonds and local school parcel taxes among Democratic, Latino, lower-income, and Bay Area likely voters.

Meanwhile, some legislators have proposed lowering the vote threshold needed to pass these taxes from two-thirds to 55 percent, which requires changing Proposition 13. But since the Democrats lost their supermajority when three of their senators were suspended, the legislature is much less likely to send this change to the voters for approval. Californians are not inclined to make this change anyway. The proportion of likely voters who say that this change to Proposition 13 is a good idea has declined—from 46 percent in April 2011 to just 39 percent today.

It is possible that voter concern about school funding needs will surface later this year, as school districts implement two dramatic changes: the Common Core Standards in the classroom and the Local Control Funding Formula, which provides more money for districts with higher proportions of English Learners and lower-income students. These changes could offer two new avenues to engage voters about the need for local school funding. For now, though, we will be watching for signs that Proposition 30’s passage will make it harder for local school ballot measures to succeed in 2014.