California schools comprise a large and diverse system. According to Ed Source, CA currently has more than 6.2 million students learning in about 9,800 schools across 977 districts. Our school districts range from the tiny (less than 10 students) to the unwieldy (LAUSD has 700,000 students), and charter schools are increasing rapidly (there are more than 700 CA charter schools, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's Race to the Top initiative hopes to continue that growth). We have a million more students than Florida and New York combined (1/8 of all US students are in CA), yet the highest proportion of children with a parent without a high school diploma. Almost half of our students qualify for free or reduced price lunch, and 1/4 of our students are English Language Learners.
In California, 1/3 of our education budget comes from local revenues, while 2/3 comes from the state (in most states this is reversed). Education makes up 40% of our state budget, so when our budget is squeezed, our schools are one of the first to feel its effects. State leaders decide annually how much money should be allocated to education. Districts then decide how to spend the funds. Proposition 98 (1988) set a minimum guarantee for K-14 funding (at least 39% of state budget, which adjust for inflation and growth in normal years, and suffer along with the rest of the budget in bad years).
So how does California compare to other states in terms of resources?
- CA spent $614 less per pupil than the national average in 2005-06
- CA teacher salaries are high, even after adjusting for cost of living
- CA has 48 teachers (national average is 64) and 2.2 principals/assistants (national average is 3.5) in a school of 1,000 students
- CA has put more than $70 billion into facilities since 1988 from passing local bonds
- the state controls more than 80% of these funds (mostly from state General Fund and local property taxes)
- the federal government contributes about 10% (primarily to low-income and special education)
- the lottery provides less than 2%
- the remaining 8% comes from "local miscellaneous" sources (a combination of bonds, private donations, and parcel taxes)
So how do we increase funding and support to our public schools? I believe through a stronger local option. This would provide:
- More direct connection between taxpayers and their schools (and therefore greater willingness to support schools)
- More revenues for schools without affecting other state programs
- Less dependence on volatile state revenues
- Greater accountability between local districts and the communities they serve
Posts
3 comments:
As a matter of accounting, it is true that in aggregate about a third of education funding is "local" in origin in California. However, communities have no control whatsoever over these funds. For schools and districts, "revenue limit" funds are connected with state law, not community skin in the game.
The true local participation in local funding for schools in California is much, much smaller -- on the order of a few percent, with wide variation based on the local wealth and level of organization of communities.
There is a way to re-empower communities to fund their schools. It involves two changes: first, relax the constitutional rules that block communities from taxing themselves for the benefit of their schools. Second, establish a state-level matching fund that augments funds raised locally in low-wealth communities so these communities are not at a disadvantage.
This approach would bring new resources, new accountability, and new innovation to schools in California.
The unfortunate truth of the situation is that the situation likely won’t improve without a serious change of the system or the recovery of the economy. The problem is relatively simple, too many kids and too little money.
The statistics that the original poster presents are staggering. One out of eight children in the United States get their education in California. It is no wonder there is less money spent on them, there are so many more students than most other states have to accommodate for. Teacher salary might be high, but it appears that on average teachers have to actually teach more students in California than teachers in other states do.
The obvious, but impossible fix is raising taxes or simply getting more money from the state. The old saying, “you can’t squeeze blood from a stone,” certainly holds credence in this situation. Everyone does or should know education is important, but even people with school aged children might think that paying their mortgages or putting food on the table is more important than paying an increased education tax. Imagine how folks who don’t even have school aged children and are struggling might feel.
Allowing local initiatives to raise more money for local schools is a good, but unfair idea. Students who grow up in more affluent regions are the only ones that would really see a positive benefit, while it is probably the schools surrounded by the least affluence that already need the most help. The flip side of that is that no one gets directly injured because no one is losing funding. Still, this type of argument wasn’t good enough legally before and it certainly isn’t good enough now.
My only positive thought on the topic would be to try and get some more funding from the Federal government. Considering that California is currently educating one eighth of the country’s students, it would be in our national best interest that these students don’t get a subpar education. Everyone else seems to be getting a bail out these days, how about California public education?
Unblocking local funding for schools is an essential ingredient to education reform in California. The state's long, slow experiment with removing power from communities has proven that reform and innovation does not come from Sacramento.
There is a way to empower communities without disadvantaging lower-wealth communities: implement a variable matching fund, as described in the report of the Governor's Committee on Education Excellence. Communities that have the means are empowered to raise their own money; communities with low wealth raise what they can and receive matching funds according to their local effort.
Matching funds are fair, easy to describe and implement, and they can address the need to re-engage communities in the education of California's children.
Post a Comment