Finance

The two biggest problems with California’s current system of school finance are 1) the revenue allocations are inequitable and have no connection to cost or need, and 2) having categorical restrictions on such a large share of the funding creates inefficiencies that prevent districts from achieving the best outcomes for their students. Brown’s proposal is the only one on the table that addresses both of these problems head on.

Almost all states provide additional, differential funding for at least a few cost factors beyond poverty and English Learners. Such funding could be allocated through weights or adjustments to the base formula, or through separate categorical streams. However, there is a great deal of variation across states in which factors are included.

Low-income and English Learner are two of the most common categories of student need that states include in their school funding formulas. In many states, the amount allocated for these higher-cost students is determined through pupil weights, set as a percentage of the base allocation. What are the right weights? Should the weight change with the concentration of need? Will California districts abandon these students without the threat of losing categorical funding?

The cost of education can be defined as the minimum amount of money that a school district must spend in order to achieve a given educational outcome. There are multiple ways to incorporate costs into a state funding system, and each has implications for local control and governance.

In a foundation state aid formula, how should the foundation amount be determined? Are the amounts proposed in Governor Brown's Local Control Funding Formula set at appropriate levels?

In the debate around Governor Brown’s proposed “Local Control Funding Formula” (LCFF), a number of issues have been raised that school finance researchers (and policymakers in other states) have been discussing for years. This ‘School Finance 101’ series will highlight what we know – and what we don’t know – about some of these issues.

In contrast to adequacy arguments that favor shifting resources away from programs for gifted children, the author here argues that failing to provide the resources so that gifted children can reach their full potential is to suggest that their needs are somehow different or less important than the needs of other children.

Voters distrust politicians and believe that a large share of public spending is wasted, in education as in other sectors. Persuading them that more educational spending will lead to better outcomes for students is a huge political challenge.

The latest PPIC poll on higher education in California was released last month, and the findings will bring no cheer to our state’s public colleges and universities. On the bright side, most respondents affirm that a strong higher education system is important for California’s future, and they agree that recent budget cuts are causing significant harm to both colleges and students.

Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) has been trying for several years now to implement the advice of the numerous committees, plans and studies that have said California’s school finance system needs structural reform, not just tinkering around the edges. In 2008, AB 2159 passed the Assembly (70-2) but died in Senate Appropriations. In 2010, AB 8 passed both the Assembly and Senate (unanimously in both) but was vetoed by the Governor.