CSBA at Issue: Weighted student funding: CSBA takes a leading role
Delegate Assembly priorities are being fleshed out; member input sought
By:
Teri Burns and Dennis Meyers
Fall 2012
It is no secret that education finance in California is insufficient and a convoluted mess. Efforts over the years to equalize and simplify the process have been slow slogging (see accompanying article). But there may be a light at the end of the tunnel for a funding system that is simple and more equitable, and that provides flexibility.
In 2005, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger challenged the status quo. His education secretary, Alan Bersin, joined with Michael Kirst—now the president of the State Board of Education— and legal scholar Goodwin Liu, to propose an approach to school finance that would tie funding directly to the students it was intended to serve—a so-called a weighted student formula.
While bold, it wasn’t a new idea: The San Francisco Unified School District was implementing its own weighted student formula for allocating funding to school sites, and others offered alternative proposals. The governor pressed the issue forward, working with the Legislature to fund a study of the real cost of public education. The result, “Getting Down to Facts,” provided additional information that helped identify funding needs and alternatives. Ultimately, the state’s funding crisis put the reform effort on hold.
Gov. Jerry Brown took up the issue in his January 2012 budget proposal, spelling out his own weighted student funding proposal. CSBA and other education stakeholders supported the funding flexibility the proposal offered, but we encouraged the Legislature to review and, if necessary, revise the details in policy committee. Time did not allow for that consideration before last spring’s budget vote, but all parties committed to further work in the year ahead.
CSBA’s Delegate Assembly last May made development of our own funding proposal, one based on simplicity and transparency, a top priority. Since then, a CSBA staff working group has been investigating the many elements such a proposal would entail in hopes of having a bill ready for introduction next January. Our goal is to have the support of the governor and our education partners; some of those discussions have already begun.
We agree with the Delegate Assembly: CSBA is in the best position to carry the message in favor of a clearer, equitable and flexible funding formula. We believe we have only a small window of time to act before this issue is overtaken by some other priority on the governor’s list. The working group began with the question of how the state should allocate education funds to districts, and we came to agree on a weighted student formula approach. Our principles, in no particular order, are:
- Simplicity
- Flexibility
- Transparency
- All/most funding must be included
- Equity—recognizing that some students cost more to educate
- Fiscal and academic accountability
- Money must follow students who move between districts
- Grade-level differentiations will be needed
- Districts must be held harmless—at a minimum, sustained in their current funding levels
- A workable plan needs buy-in from legislators, districts and the public
Given these criteria, there are many issues to be resolved before a bill moves forward. That’s the very reason we argued a weighted student formula needs policy committee hearings before being imposed.
We still need to address these questions:
Recognizing that some programs don’t fit well into a weighted student formula, should any programs and funds be left out of the formula?
Which students cost more to educate, and what “weights” would appropriately fund the additional costs of educating students with particular characteristics?
How should funding be weighted for students who meet multiple criteria?
Other issues currently under study by the work group include special education (Texas uses 10 different weights); adult education; career and technical education; transportation; and facilities. We’re also looking at county office-run programs, court schools and after-school programs. Special questions arise regarding maintenance-of-effort requirements for federal funds, regional cost differentials, basic aid districts—particularly those “on the bubble”—and the needs of declining enrollment districts.
And, don’t forget, a roll-out plan will be necessary if we are to make such a dramatic shift in funding in an era when funding is already deeply inadequate. A plan for adjusting funding rates in the future is also needed.
As you can see, these are complicated issues. We welcome your thoughts and suggestions as we move forward. Please contact me with your thoughts as we continue to put this proposal in legislative form.
Teri Burns ( tburns@csba.org ) is senior director of CSBA’s Policy and Programs Department.