Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
Quantity:
Subtotal
Taxes
Shipping
Total
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart

California School Fiscal Services

Providing comprehensive business office and consulting services to K-12 traditional schools and charters

Blog

Blog

3 key budget moves favor teacher- not student- needs

Posted on July 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM

If you don't already have edsource.org bookmarked, be sure to add it to your professional development library.  They are always great at providing robust discussions and analysis of educational issues.  Here's a recent example that I just know many of you will appreciate! 

---------------------------------

3 key budget moves favor teacher – not student – needs

Credit: Courtesy of John Affeldt

With increased revenues in the state’s coffers, there are many things to like in the budget signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, but three key developments are setting off alarms for education advocates and community groups who supported the landmark Local Control Funding Formula reform. With each of them, the governor seems to be shaping or restricting the newfound flexibility in the funding formula in ways that principally benefit teachers’ interests and not the high-needs students supposedly at the heart of the reform.

First came the lightning bolt in the May revision of the budget, in which Brown proposed to address the state’s $74 billion unfunded liability in the California State Teachers Retirement System primarily on the backs of school districts. There is no question that the CalSTRS issue needs to be addressed and that failing to do so only makes matters more expensive down the road. But Brown’s solution is to increase the annual contributions from the state and teachers somewhat – and from districts a whole lot. The state’s responsibility and share of the burden vis-à-vis districts should be roughly reversed, with Sacramento instead carrying 70 percent of the load and districts only 20 percent. But rather than propose a plan to raise state revenues for the CalSTRS paydown, Brown wants districts to shoulder the bulk of that burden – with the existing inadequate level of school funding. This only worsens the consequences for kids. Districts use K-12 Proposition 98 funds to pay their CalSTRS share; the state’s contribution is from the General Fund. Thus, under the governor’s district-centric solution, there will be fewer Prop. 98 dollars statewide and fewer dollars from the Local Control Funding Formula on the ground for districts to use for programs and services for students.

Restricting districts’ reserves

Then at the 11th hour came another shocker. In conference committee, Brown inserted a statewide maximum on districts’ budget reserves, the size of which teacher and classified unions have long grumbled about. Now, when the state has a good year or two economically and puts money into its rainy day fund, districts will be forced to spend down their own local rainy day reserves. This might make sense if the state were guaranteeing its fund would fully cover district shortfalls should the economy go south or if the state guaranteed adequate annual funding for schools, but neither is the case. As such, it is folly to undercut local districts’ ability to plan prudently. For every good year that brings rainy day investments, subsequent economic downturns will surely follow. Hundreds of districts were negatively qualified by county offices of education during the recent downturn, and more than a few were close to insolvency. The ability to shore up reserves kept most districts afloat and served students well.

The Brown administration, with union support, slipped in this significant new restriction on local spending without any public hearings or debate or time for thoughtful consideration. With it in place, stores of local rainy day funds around the state will eventually be funneled straight onto the bargaining table in one chaotic swoop. Some funds will go toward temporary new programs and services (only to be eliminated via cuts and layoffs when school funding next takes a hit); other dollars will inevitably flow right into permanent salary increases. In many cases there will be too many new dollars coming too suddenly for districts to absorb into new programs and/or to withstand the bargaining pressure. The result will be better paid staff, but not necessarily new or better services for high-needs students as promised by the Local Control Funding Formula. Either way, when the bad times come, not having the local reserves to keep things afloat will lead to even more calamitous cuts and layoffs, ill serving the neediest students, who typically suffer the most when the cuts come.

For a governor who promised increased local decision-making under a new regime of “subsidiarity,” Brown just contradicted himself with two whoppers…

Limiting transparency

To punctuate the trifecta, near the close of budget negotiations the administration, with CTA’s urging, quietly removed a provision in the budget trailer bill to increase transparency around how supplemental and concentration dollars for high-needs students are spent by districts. The proposal to modify the state’s school accounting codes was advanced by civil rights advocates and community groups in an effort to increase the transparency for locals and policymakers on how this grand LCFF experiment is playing out for the students it is intended to serve. Both houses in the Legislature included language on transparency in their budget versions. The proposal would not have converted any LCFF funds into restricted dollars like the old categoricals nor reduced any flexibility in how LCFF dollars are spent. It merely would have shown, in broad categories, how supplemental and concentration dollars were being spent. Before the conference committee could even consider the proposal, the administration had it removed.

Mind you, the state has acknowledged, without concern, that many local districts are tracking these dollars with local accounting codes. Apparently, the objection is to the statewide aggregation of data and its potential effect on policy. As CTA told the conference committee in opposing the effort: “That aggregated analysis will misrepresent what is truly happening at local districts and will result in the same kind of statewide, data driven critique that the LCFF sought to reverse.”

So now that we value local control, we no longer can analyze aggregated data and respond appropriately? Could it be that the CTA and the governor don’t want it easily known that the bulk of supplemental and concentration dollars are flowing to higher benefit and salary costs (aided by the new CalSTRS fix and the local reserve cap) and not necessarily to new staff and higher services for high-needs students?

For a governor who promised increased local decision-making under a new regime of “subsidiarity,” Brown just contradicted himself with two whoppers: a new state mandate to spend limited funds on CalSTRS and a new prohibition on local fiscal planning. It’s true that most teachers deserve raises, just as most high-needs students deserve greater services to succeed with the new Common Core standards. But we trusted Brown that funding formula distributions would be decided locally, through the LCFF process – not precluded through CalSTRS mandates, funneled predominantly into salaries, and hidden from view.

It’s as if the administration has forgotten that LCFF was passed and carries legitimacy precisely because so many stakeholders came together – not just the unions, but also many districts and superintendents and civil rights and grassroots organizations representing parents, students and community advocates. These late-breaking, insider maneuvers risk undermining the consensus support for the new law. To restore that delicate consensus, a new conversation on how to adequately fund our schools (including the CalSTRS obligation) should begin; more immediately, the reserve cap should be removed and the transparency reporting provision reinserted. And going forward, these late-dropping, ground-shifting surprises have to be avoided.

•••

John Affeldt is Managing Attorney at Public Advocates Inc., a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization. He has been recognized by California Lawyer Magazine as a California Attorney of the Year.

 

 

Categories: LCFF, California State Budget (2014-15)

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

2207 Comments

Reply Buy A Essay
3:58 PM on October 20, 2020 
websites to write essays
Reply Pay Day Loan
2:17 PM on October 20, 2020 
texas loan
Reply Judyjeaky
12:49 PM on October 20, 2020 
cialis 200mg pills dipyridamole tablets buy where can i get viagra uk where can i buy kamagra in australia vardenafil 20mg for sale order effexor 150mg online cheap cialis professional viagra levitra cialis differin price hydroxychloroquine 25 mg
Reply Pay Day Loans
5:59 AM on October 20, 2020 
allstate insurance company loans in houston tx 100 payday loan
Reply Carljeaky
5:54 AM on October 20, 2020 
generic viagra online united states online real viagra prescription viagra cheap quineprox 75 buy viagra 100mg uk
Reply Pauljeaky
2:22 AM on October 20, 2020 
chloramphenicol australia order sildenafil from canada cialis gel uk cheap effexor xr kamagra 100mg pills price
Reply Loan Cash
10:01 PM on October 19, 2020 
life insurance policy search
Reply Pay To Write Essays
9:22 PM on October 19, 2020 
essay writing my family write a speech pay for an essay
Reply Getting A Loan
8:13 PM on October 19, 2020 
american retirement life insurance company
Reply Eyejeaky
3:16 PM on October 19, 2020 
amitriptyline price in usa prazosin sleep aid canadian pharmacy viagra 100mg dipyridamole medication kamagra oral jelly for females where can i buy sildenafil tablets zocor otc yasmin mexico doxazosin 2 mg tablet plaquenil hydroxychloroquine anafranil for anxiety minocycline caps 75mg vermox us v gel cream price zoloft 200 mg daily prescription drug pamelor differin 0.3 gel omnicef uti viagra soft cheap diovan for high blood pressure
Reply Assignment Helpers
2:56 PM on October 19, 2020 
home loans texas
Reply Lisajeaky
11:24 AM on October 19, 2020 
pristiq 25 mg
Reply Amyjeaky
10:15 AM on October 19, 2020 
plaquenil 100 mg tablets
Reply Carljeaky
3:20 AM on October 19, 2020 
sildenafil tablet brand name crestor 10 mg cost prazosin for insomnia buy propranolol over the counter buy female viagra online uk
Reply Write Essays Online
6:43 PM on October 18, 2020 
essay writing help online
Reply Cash Loan
5:52 PM on October 18, 2020 
poor credit loans guaranteed
Reply Custom Essay Writing
3:49 PM on October 18, 2020 
writing resume cover letter
Reply Judyjeaky
3:39 PM on October 18, 2020 
buy sildenafil online no prescription buy generic viagra online safely silvitra online order viagra without prescription generic for zanaflex adalat canada pharmacy without prescription cheap cialis online canadian pharmacy discount pharmacy sildenafil elavil pill viagra 100mg cost
Reply Maryjeaky
12:18 PM on October 18, 2020 
viagra generic online pharmacy advair 500 price sildenafil uk paypal cheap cialis with prescription where to buy kamagra 100mg oral jelly propranolol discount tretinoin 0.11 vardenafil for sale 20 mg chewable ed zoloft medication for sale on line
Reply Markjeaky
6:20 AM on October 18, 2020 
viagra prescription india how much is keflex altace 5mg buy suhagra tablet viagra for women sale levitra cost comparison