The Governor’s Local Control Funding Formula Would Boost California Spending Per Student

March 11, 2013

Resources matter when it comes to educating California’s 6.2 million K-12 students. Governor Brown’s school finance reform proposal, the “Local Control Funding Formula” (LCFF), focuses attention on that fact and would take the important step of directing dollars to students who need additional support to achieve the state’s academic standards — English learners, students from low-income families, and foster youth. The Governor’s proposal also would boost overall state spending per student, a measure on which California neared the bottom of the nation a couple of years ago, and could raise it to the same level as the rest of the US by the time the LCFF is fully implemented.

According to newly released data from the National Education Association, California school spending lags that in the rest of the nation by $2,500 per student. This means that in order to reach the same level of spending per student as the rest of the US, California would need to spend an additional $15.3 billion in the current (2012-13) budget year alone. The Governor’s proposed 2013-14 budget calls for implementing the Local Control Funding Formula by raising the annual school funding level by a similar amount — $15.5 billion — over approximately seven years, plus annual cost-of-living adjustments. Even though it would not bring California’s spending per student up to the level of the rest of the US for several years, the additional funding the Governor proposes would provide a significant boost to state spending per student and is worthy of support.

Would the funding targets in the LCFF ensure that the state is providing the necessary resources to give every California student access to a quality education? Or does the state need to establish more ambitious funding goals to reach funding adequacy? Legislators have raised these questions at recent budget hearings, but broad agreement about what constitutes an adequate funding level to achieve the state’s rigorous performance goals remains elusive. One assemblymember suggested that California should not be satisfied with reaching the same level of spending per student as the rest of the US, but instead should aspire to rank in the top 10 states in the nation. To make it into the top 10, California would need to spend an additional $41.1 billion in 2012-13 — a funding level increase of more than two-thirds — which would require the state to raise significant new revenues. Such high aspirations for California spending per student are laudable and deserve our support. Yet at the same time, concerns that the state is not doing enough to establish sufficient funding levels should not be a reason to oppose a significant increase in state support for schools.

While the Governor’s proposal provides a boost to school funding, the LCFF does raise some concerns, including the need to make sure that additional dollars actually go to support the students for whom they are intended. Stay tuned to California Budget Bites for further analysis of how to strengthen accountability under the LCFF and ensure that restructuring the state’s school finance system improves education for all California students.

— Jonathan Kaplan


Key Facts About the Governor’s Proposed Budget, Part 3: Spending Per Student Rises Due to New Revenues, But Still Faces a Long Climb Back

January 28, 2013

This is the latest in a CBP chart series highlighting some of the most important aspects of Governor Brown’s 2013-14 budget proposal and the context for it.

 * * *

State spending per K-12 student will rise in the current (2012-13) fiscal year and in 2013-14 due to voter approval of two revenue measures – Proposition 30 and Proposition 39 – last November, according to the Governor’s proposed 2013-14 budget. Yet even with this increase, per student state support for public schools will remain much lower than the 2007-08 level, after adjusting for inflation.

Why is last November’s voter approval of major revenue measures – while crucial in reversing years of declining support for public schools – not enough to return state spending per student to the level it was when the Great Recession began? As we blogged about recently, state finance officials project that Propositions 30 and 39 together will increase state General Fund revenues by nearly $6 billion in 2012-13 and by $7.2 billion in 2013-14. Because increases in General Fund revenues tend to boost the state’s minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges – required by Proposition 98 of 1988 – California voters’ actions in November increased state support for schools in the proposed 2013-14 budget. The Governor’s proposal estimates that state spending will go up by $1,000 per student between 2011-12 and 2013-14, after adjusting for inflation. However, even with the increased taxes from Propositions 30 and 39, General Fund revenues are projected to be $2.8 billion lower in 2013-14 than in 2007-08, without adjusting for inflation. The drop in revenues compared with six years ago, which is partially due to declining incomes during the Great Recession and several corporate tax cuts passed in recent years, helps explain why state spending per student in 2013-14 will remain so far below the 2007-08 level.

The substantial new revenues approved by voters last November help stabilize the budget and allow the state to begin reinvesting in education. Still, state K-12 spending per student is unlikely to return to pre-recession levels until General Fund revenues fully recover lost ground.

– Jonathan Kaplan


New CBP Video: Proposition 30 Would Move California Toward More Broadly Shared Prosperity

November 1, 2012

In this brief video, CBP Deputy Director Alissa Anderson discusses the importance of Proposition 30 in the context of widening income inequality in California. Proposition 30, which will appear on the November 6 statewide ballot, would raise significant new revenues through temporary tax increases that would largely affect the wealthiest Californians.

This is the latest in an ongoing series of videos from the CBP highlighting key issues and trends in budget policy and what they mean for individuals, families, and communities statewide.


New CBP Video: How Proposition 30 Would Both Stabilize the State Budget and Increase School Funding

October 30, 2012

In this brief video, CBP Policy Analyst Hope Richardson discusses Proposition 30, which will appear on the statewide ballot next Tuesday, and explains how the measure would achieve two important goals: stabilizing the state budget and boosting state funding for K-12 schools and community colleges.

This is the latest in an ongoing series of videos from the CBP highlighting key issues and trends in budget policy and what they mean for individuals, families, and communities statewide.


New CBP Analysis Provides Side-by-Side Comparison of Propositions 30 and 38

October 5, 2012

The political season is heating up, and once again the statewide ballot includes several measures that ask voters to weigh in on important state policy issues. Two of these measures, Proposition 30 and Proposition 38, would raise additional revenues through temporary tax increases, but differ significantly in their approaches as well as their implications for the state budget.

To help voters better understand Propositions 30 and 38, a new CBP analysis provides a side-by-side comparison of these measures. This easy-to-read table draws from the recent CBP reports, What Would Proposition 30 Mean for California? and What Would Proposition 38 Mean for California?, and aims to succinctly explain what each measure would do. As noted in our full reports, the CBP has endorsed Proposition 30 and neither supports nor opposes Proposition 38.

This side-by-side look at these measures sheds light on some notable strengths of Proposition 30. For example, the measure would raise almost four-fifths of the new revenues (78.8 percent) from the top 1 percent, a group whose average inflation-adjusted income has skyrocketed during the past generation, even while average incomes for low- and middle-income Californians have decreased. Furthermore ­– and most importantly – while Propositions 30 and 38 would both increase funding for K-12 schools, Proposition 30 also would provide the revenues needed to help close the state’s budget gap and stabilize the state’s finances. Proposition 30 thus would allow California to reinvest in education, while at the same time bringing the state budget into balance and avoiding deeper cuts to public programs and systems that are essential to all Californians.

– Jonathan Kaplan


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers