Tag: school funding

Video: Californians and Education

Last week in Sacramento, Alyssa Dykman outlined the key findings from PPIC’s 15th annual survey on Californians and K–12 education, which tracks opinions on educational quality and school funding. This month’s survey was the first ever to be conducted with a fully online methodology.

A strong majority of Californians want Governor Newsom to prioritize K–12 public education, and majorities support many of the governor’s education-related budget proposals—including the expansion of special education and full-day preschool and kindergarten. Solid majorities also support teacher strikes for higher pay.

But Californians have mixed views on charter schools: most say they are an important option for parents in low-income areas, but many express concern about charters diverting funding from traditional public schools.

Other survey highlights:

  • Most Californians think the level of state funding for local public schools is not adequate.
  • More than half of residents across regions say teacher salaries in their community are too low.
  • Majorities of adults and likely voters would vote for a ballot measure that would amend Proposition 13 to create a “split roll” property tax system and direct some of the revenue to K–12 education.
  • Many parents think the goal of K–12 public education should be to prepare students for college—but many worry about the affordability of a college education.

Public School Parents See Education Differently

In our annual PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and education, 40% of adults say that the quality of K–12 public education in the state is a big problem. Notably, the parents of public school children are more likely than others to have favorable opinions about public education in California: just 27% say quality is a big problem. Adults without children, those with children in private schools, and those with children too young to attend school are the ones who tend to hold a more negative view of the state’s public education system. This pattern is consistent with our findings in previous surveys.

Parents who don’t have children in public schools are twice as likely as those who do to say the quality of K–12 public education is a big problem. They are also twice as likely to give their neighborhood public schools a grade of D or F. (Adults without children age 18 or younger fall in between the two parent groups on these questions.)

In addition, when asked how their elected officials are handling K–12 education, public school parents are much more likely than others to approve of Governor Brown and the California Legislature in this area.

Regardless of whether they have children in public schools, many parents agree that school funding is inadequate. Two-thirds of both parent groups say that the level of funding for their local public schools is inadequate, while 58% of other adults say the same.

Most adults support K–12 funding proposals, and support among public school parents is particularly strong. At least two-thirds of adults say they would vote for either a local or state bond measure to pay for school construction projects, with over 80% of public school parents supporting these measures. Asked how they would vote on a local parcel tax for schools, 70% of public school parents would vote yes—exceeding the two-thirds majority needed to pass such a tax. Among other adults, about 60% would vote yes.

Certainly, it’s not surprising that parents who decided to send their children to private schools might have different opinions about educational quality compared to those with children in public schools. The differences that we find, though, extend beyond a difference between public school parents and private school parents. On several measures, parents with children in public schools stand apart from all other California adults in their assessment of the state’s K-12 public education system.

Learn more

Read the PPIC Survey: Californians and Education
Visit the PPIC Statewide Survey pages

More Money, More Challenges for K-12 Schools

The 2015-16 budget agreement between the legislative leadership and governor provides substantial additional funding for the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The money allows the state to implement the formula more quickly, and some districts will experience very large funding increases. While LCFF significantly expanded district financial flexibility, it also calls for districts to use the new funding to improve local performance. Districts may find meeting various state and local expectations a complex task.

The budget includes $53.1 billion for LCFF, or $6 billion more than appropriated in the 2014-15 budget. To put this into perspective, this represents an increase of more than $1,000 per pupil on average, or 14% more than schools received this year.

When LCFF was enacted in 2013-14, the administration estimated that the transition from old to new formula would take eight years. But funding increases were larger than forecasts in 2014–15 and 2015–16. Since 2013-14, almost $11 billion has been added to LCFF, leaving a gap of only $5.5 billion to fully fund the formula. Depending on the health of the economy, this gap could disappear completely in the next few years—and far earlier than originally forecast.

The LCFF simplified school funding by consolidating several dozen funding streams into a formula that distributes funds based on the number of students in each grade and the proportion of low-income, English-learner, and foster students in each district. The formula also sets district funding targets to equalize per-pupil funding levels across districts. In addition, funding levels for kindergarten and grades 1–3 were enhanced to give districts the incentive to reduce class sizes in the early grades. Similarly, high school funding levels were increased to support vocational classes and other courses to prepare students for college and careers.

Districts must balance how new funds are spent with the various requirements of LCFF and local expectations for spending increases. They must make progress in shrinking class sizes (despite the shortage of available teachers in some areas). They also must pay for improvement plans that are required under LCFF. The law requires districts to assess student and school outcomes in eight state priority areas and develop improvement plans and budgets that address local priorities for improving student performance.

Districts must also accommodate the typical financial pressures of any large organization, such as physical plant maintenance and employee salary and benefit increases. LCFF generally requires that districts use money targeted for high-needs students only for educational services for those students. However, in a recent letter sent to school superintendents, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson advised that extra funding for high-needs students may be spent on across-the-board salary increases if the expenditure will improve services for those students. This interpretation may allow districts more discretion and increase pressure for larger employee raises.

The coming fiscal year promises significant new funding for schools—and significant demands for those funds. It is important these funds are well spent, in part because districts are unlikely to see increases of this magnitude in the near future. Forecasts from both the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office suggest that school budgets in 2016–17 and 2017–18 are likely to grow at a rate of about 3%. This year’s 14% increase in LCFF funding may represent the largest chunk of new discretionary funding that most districts will see for several years.