Seth Rosenblatt

Seth Rosenblatt

I want to like the governor's proposal — I actually do. Governor Chocolate-brown's Local Control Funding Formula is certainly the first sign of real and meaningful education finance reform in decades. As a very active voice decrying our dysfunctional organisation, I should be jumping for joy right now, shouldn't I? The governor admittedly needs to be commended for his political backbone and vision to alter this system, and the notion of directing more money to districts with higher needs is spot on. And folks who are more politically savvy than I in the ways of Sacramento tell me this is the best chance we'll have to make these changes. So, what's the trouble?

To exist clear, I take ever argued that communities with economically disadvantaged students and English language-language learners should get more than funding, and if anything the weights in Gov. Brown's LCFF probably aren't virtually plenty to compensate for the inherent challenges in educating certain populations. All the same, I have also argued that calculation universal preschool would go a long way toward leveling the field for our students, and ironically may even be more than powerful—and maybe fifty-fifty cheaper in the long run—than compensating districts in afterwards grades for more challenged populations. Despite the recent attention this issue has been getting (not unrelated to the president's call for expanded preschool), this issue seems to be by and large absent-minded in this conversation at the state level about education finance reform despite its articulate linkage.

The LCFF also presents some very applied challenges for districts such as my ain. Ours, like 90 per centum of districts in the country, is a Revenue Limit district, meaning that its funding is essentially dictated by the state, but we live in a high price-of-living surface area with a centre-upper income population. So, properly, we're on the low end of this weighted formula, merely that hardly accounts for what it actually takes to educate our children. For instance, the nearly obvious "weight" missing in the LCFF formula is regional price of living. Ultimately, it's not the inputs (e.g., money) that thing but rather the outputs—what you tin can do with money. We must pay teachers a higher corporeality than most other places in the state or else they wouldn't even be able to afford to live within a commuting distance! So, the same dollar does not purchase the aforementioned teacher (or administrator, or advisor, or librarian, etc.) beyond the country. I've discussed this issue with a number of our state representatives who generally agree that although this is an honest intellectual statement, it's a dead political ane. No i is going to stand up and advocate to give more money to "rich" districts despite the truism that some places get more for their dollar than others. Although this issue is a challenge for my district, information technology as well affects the number of economically disadvantaged communities inside our canton that still suffer from the same relative high price-of-living pressures. Although they volition gain from the "weights" in the LCFF compared to a commune similar mine, they will still lose out compared to similar districts in other counties.

One potential political "compromise" here is the lowering of the bundle revenue enhancement threshold to 55%. SCA 3 would identify a measure on the ballot, which if approved by voters would lower the threshold to pass a school parcel tax from the electric current two-thirds required. Although I am a supporter of doing this in any instance (as the 2/3 requirement has been especially onerous, and lowering it will allow more communities to help fund themselves), its passage would human activity as a bit of a counterweight to the inherent bias in the current LCFF formula confronting districts in higher toll-of-living areas—many of these (although not all) accept demonstrated an increased chapters to tax themselves to compensate.

The next large issue is the definition of LCFF'south "hold harmless" concept (the promise that no district will lose money versus what it gets today). Of course the LCFF is a major improvement over terminal year's Weighted Student Formula, which would have actually taken base money away from districts (including mine), simply the concord harmless provision even so misses two cardinal points. Offset, we will still be losing some streams of "categorical" coin that we received in the past and which, in our case, won't exist fabricated up past the new LCFF weights. 2nd, many revenue limit districts are funded at a charge per unit 20 percent below what they were pre-recession. And California wasn't exactly funding our schools well even at that fourth dimension. So, the promise to agree us apartment at our current lower level is common cold comfort. Co-ordinate to our preliminary calculations, our district volition clamber back to its pre-recession funding level once the formula is fully implemented (assuming state revenue projections hold upwards). This is consistent with the governor's plan to take vii more years to bring districts back to their 2007-08 funding levels, but this means it effectively will take taken over a decade—more than an entire generation of students in our One thousand-eight commune—merely to return to the pocket-size level of funding we had before. The obvious alternative—as discussed in the interview with Associates Chair Joan Buchanan in EdSource Today back in November—is to first restore all districts to pre-recession levels before implementing the weighted formula. Just of course this would cost a lot more than money and would delay relative funding for those districts nearly in need.

Lastly, nosotros have an expectation-setting problem. Each of our local communities (and our employees) may take greater expectations than reality will bear out. On a statewide level, just like the passage of Proposition 30 final Nov, LCFF implementation runs the risk that it will give many the erroneous supposition that we take now "fixed" the problem. It'southward a major stride in righting the ship, and I go along to applaud the efforts. Only unless nosotros recognize that it is just a first footstep, California will keep to systematically underfund public education and shortchange our hereafter…we will take merely spread around the misfortune a picayune more rationally.

•••

Seth Rosenblatt is a member of the Governing Board of the San Carlos Schoolhouse District. He as well serves equally the president of the San Mateo County Schoolhouse Boards Association and sits on the Executive Committee of the Articulation Venture Silicon Valley Sustainable Schools Task Force. He has ii children in San Carlos public schools. He writes often on issues in public teaching, including in both regional and national publications as well equally on his own blog.

To go more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource's no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.