Staff Report: Highlights from the School Services Workshop (Andi Stubbs)

Monday, May 21, 2012

Main Ideas: National and State economies improving, but very, very

slowly. Some gains in jobs, but not enough to counteract the 1.3

million jobs lost because of the recession

Flat funding for 2012-13 vs. large cuts: Tax proposal approved = flat funding at the 2011-12

level (But costs keep going up! We’ve still lost 20% of our

funding since 2007-2008)

Tax proposal fails = approximately $441 cut per ADA! ($356 in revenue limit, plus $85 per ADA cut for state-wide loss of all transportation funding)

Funding Per ADA: Actual versus Statutory Level (SSC)

Money Matters in Student Performance (SSC)

Test Scores vs. Dollars Per Student

Highest-Performing States

Lowest-Performing States

Maine New Jersey Rhode Island Vermont Wyoming

California Arizona Nevada Idaho Mississippi

$23,000

$6,700

$8,700

$16,000

$22,000

$0

1-30

California’s Spending Lags the Nation (SSC)

California’s Schools Lag Behind Other States on a Number of Measures

California

Rank

California Rest

of U.S.

K-12 Spending Per Student (2009-10)* 44 $8,826 $11,372

K-12 Spending as a Percentage of Personal Income (2008-09)* 46 3.28% 4.25%

Number of K-12 Students Per Teacher (2009-10)* 50 21.3 13.8

Number of K-12 Students Per Administrator (2007-08) 46 358 216

Number of K-12 Students Per Guidance Counselor (2007-08) 49 809 440

Number of K-12 Students Per Librarian (2007-08) 50 5,038 809

*Estimated

Note: “California Rank” and “Rest of U.S.” exclude the District of Columbia. Spending per student and number of

students per teacher are based on average daily attendance (ADA). Number of students per administrator, guidance

counselor, and librarian are based on statewide enrollment.

Source: National Education Association, National Center for Education Statistics, and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

1-31

Risks to the Revised Budget Proposal (SSC)

Even if the Legislature adopts the Governor’s May Revision as proposed, the State Budget would face huge risks in 2012-13

Voter approval of the Governor’s tax initiative is uncertain at best

The measure has yet to qualify for the November ballot

While more than one million signatures have been submitted, more than 800,000 must be found valid in order for the initiative to be placed on the ballot

The latest poll found that about 54% of those surveyed supported the measure, a slim margin at this stage of the campaign

A competing measure sponsored by Molly Munger and the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) could confuse voters and draw support away from the Governor’s initative

The Facebook IPO could fall short of expectations, resulting in a loss of General Fund tax revenue

1-20

Education Funding Initiatives (SSC):

Proponent and

Title

Total

Revenues

Generated

Education Revenues

Generated

Source of Additional

Revenues Duration

Governor

Jerry Brown –

“The Schools and

Local Public

Protection Act of

2012”

$8.5 billion

in 2012-13;

$6.5 billion

thereafter

Limited – additional

funds offset State General

Fund (GF) obligation;

$2.9 billion increase in

Proposition 98 first year

Quarter-cent sales tax

increase; up to 3% increase

in personal income tax rate

for high-income earners

($250,000 and above)

4 years

sales tax,

7 years

income tax

* Molly Munger

(PTA supported)

“Our Children,

Our Future: Local

Schools and

Early Education

Investment and

Bond Debt

Reduction Act”

$5 billion

in 2012-13;

$10 billion

thereafter

First 3 years:

60% K-12 schools

10% Early childhood

education (ECE)

30% State GF bond debt

Remaining years:

85% K-12 schools

15% ECE

Increase in personal income

tax for all but low-income

earners, from 0.4% for

lowest income individuals to

2.2% for individuals earning

more than $2.5 million

12 years

* The Munger initiative provides K-12 funds on a school specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public

input. It also prohibits the state from directing or using these funds.

2-6

No New Funding for Schools (SSC)

Despite claims of:

$6 billion more for schools!

16% increase for schools!

Your district, your schools, your classrooms do not get one more dime whether the Governor’s taxes pass or not!

Our gain is the absence of yet another cut

The public is confused

The state says Proposition 98 is growing

But local schools are making massive cuts and affirming layoffs

The state has not provided a single new dollar to local schools since 2007-08

1-5

Proposition 98 Minimum per-pupil funding guarantee

Has risen, but schools don’t directly see the benefit

Increases in Proposition 98 used to “pay back” deferrals, debt service on school bond funds, etc.

Confusing for voters—hear that Prop 98 is “going up,” but no increase to funding

…so what if the tax proposal fails?

May Revision proposes school district authorization to reduce school year by up to a total of 15 days over the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years.

We are currently authorized for 5 days per year through 2014-15 (from 180 down to 175)

Allows for another 15 days over two years (maximum of 16 days in any one year)

Doesn’t totally get the job done of addressing big cuts.

“this will allow schools to use a combination of reserves, reductions in the school year, and other savings options to absorb this cut”

Weighted Student Formula: New funding formula proposed to fix the state’s current

school finance system. January proposal-formula proposed, but flawed May revision—new Weighted Student Formula proposal: --Base grant = $5,421 per ADA --Suppl. Grant for EL’s, Free/Reduced: 20% --Concentration grant for districts with > 50% of above --Phase-in period: 7 years, with 2012-13 held harmless --Includes CSR funds, and about 40 other categoricals --Fully flexible funds Now tied to tax initiative; will not take effect if the

initiative fails.

Categorical Programs Flexibility—no change, but these will be incorporated

into the Weight Student Funding Formula (WSF)

Home-to School Transportation funding eliminated in 2012-13, but districts will receive the same amount will be included in the WSF (about $21,000 for MUSD)

Funding from all the categorical programs that will be included in the WSF can be used for any educational purpose

Categorical Programs Included in the Weighted Student Formula (SSC)

Adult Education Civic Education

Adults in Correctional Facilities Community-Based English Tutoring

Advanced Placement Grant Programs Deferred Maintenance

Agricultural Vocational Education District and county office of education

revenue limits

Alternative Credentialing Economic Impact Aid

Apprentice Programs Educational Technology

Arts and Music Block Grant Gifted and Talented Education

California High School Exit Exam Grade 7-12 Counseling

California School Age Families Education

Program

High School Class-Size Reduction

Certificated Staff Mentoring Instructional Materials Block Grant

Charter Schools Block Grant K-3 Class-Size Reduction

3-2

the Weighted Student Formula (SSC)

National Board Certification School and Library Improvement Block

Grant

Oral Health Assessments School Safety Block Grant

Partnership Academies School Safety Competitive Grant

Physical Education Block Grant Specialized Secondary Program Grants

Principal Training Staff Development

Professional Development Block Grant Student Leadership/California Association

of Student Councils

Professional Development Institutes for

Math and English

Summer school programs

Pupil Retention Block Grant Teacher Credentialing Block Grant

Regional Occupational Centers and

Programs

Teacher Dismissal Apportionments

3-3

Weighted Student Formula Exclusions (SSC)

The only major programs excluded from the weighted student funding formula in addition to transportation and TIIG, are:

Program Rationale

After-School Programs Proposition 49 requires a ballot initiative

approved by the voters to make any changes

to after-school funding

Necessary Small Schools Funding needed to maintain schools in

sparsely populated areas

Preschool Program Program/funding is not a K-12 program

QEIA Part of a legal settlement

School Nutrition Federal accounting and maintenance-of-effort

requirements

Special Education Federal program requirements and

maintenance-of-effort issues

All programs listed above must use funding for intended purpose – they are not flexible.

3-4

Federal Funds Essentially “flat” funding in 2012-13—maybe

a slight increase to Title I (which is funded on a per-ADA formula, based on 2010 Census).

State applied for a waiver to the U.S. Department of Education for relief of certain sanctions for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years

Federal ESEA Waiver Application (SSC)

In May, the State Board of Education (SBE) voted to submit a state-defined waiver to the United States Department of Education for relief of select provisions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years In summary, the waiver requests permission to:

End the requirement that schools in program improvement set aside funds for Title I professional development, Supplemental Educational Services, and choice-related transportation activities Would free up funds for activities that LEAs determine to be most

effective Revise the current state accountability system to a single accountability

system End over-identification of low-performing schools and districts

Public comment on the waiver application will be accepted until May 25 For more information, visit: http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/pn/

Waiver is scheduled to be submitted in early June

3-15

Transitional Kindergarten: SB 1381:

changed the eligible birth dates for enrolling students in Kindergarten

2012-13 = From December 2 to November 1

Results in about 40,000 fewer Kinders state-wide

Loss of students = loss of funding = less resources

Established a “Transitional Kinder” program

To start in 2012-13 by law

May Revise: Eliminates requirement to offer TK and funding –becomes an optional, local decision.

State savings used to support pre-school programs

Districts can receive funding for TK students once they turn 5

District Planning A look two years out (Multi-Year Projection) is necessary to

help districts stay solvent. It is also required by law.

Multi-year projections are the mathematical result of today’s decisions based on given assumptions

Projections change as underlying factors change.

Ending fund balance—challenges:

State threatens cuts

Management prepares by making cuts (lay-off ’s, etc.)

Cuts are delayed, resulting in big fund balance as if cuts weren’t needed

Results in a credibility problem

District Planning, cont. New reality of threatened cuts/mid-

year triggers impacts employer-employee relations

Both sides lose if the district goes bankrupt

Employers/employees must work together-the real conflict is with the State of California.

District Planning, cont. $441 per ADA cut would be devastating (about $1,759,000 in

2012-13), and ongoing.

Measure B Parcel Tax: Bringing in over $500,000 annually through 2013-2014.

2014-15: Deficit of over $2.2 million if the tax measure fails, and the parcel tax expires.

Measure B: “Supports high academic achievement for local

students by "maintaining small class sizes, updated textbooks and classroom materials, improved access to modern technology, science education, art, music, band programs, library services and school counselors to help students prepare for college and work."

Final Thoughts (SSC) The Governor is faced with a tough problem and it won’t be easy

to get his solutions adopted and implemented

School agencies have not had any new revenues since 2007-08 and there won’t be any this year

None of the cuts made to education in the prior five years are restored

California remains at the bottom of the nation in both student performance and education funding

Despite our best efforts, that won’t change this year

This will be another difficult year for all of California’s families and it will have an impact on the readiness of our students to learn

It is more important than ever that our schools provide a safe sanctuary for the minds of our children

6-8