Many parents and citizens are confused by California’s current school finance system. That’s because it is very convoluted, largely a result of court decisions and settlements, the passage of Proposition 13, legislative mandates, and State budget constraints over the past 30 years. Until 1972, most decisions were made by local school districts, based on local property tax revenues. However, this created wide disparities in public education funding throughout the State, which led to the Serrano v. Priest decision in 1972. Serrano v. Priest led to new State-created procedures that compute “revenue limit” funding levels for each school district, with the goal of achieving equity over time. Unfortunately, under this formula, Lamorinda and Walnut Creek schools have historically received and continue to receive considerably less state money than other districts in California on a per pupil basis. Furthermore, our districts receive little “categorical” funding, which is reserved for those school districts that provide financial assistance and extra academic services (e.g. English as second language, free and reduced-price lunches) to qualifying student populations.

For more background on funding inequity, you can read the article by Paul Goldfinger of School Services of California posted on our web site.

To check out your district’s funding levels or compare funding levels between districts, visit the Ed Data site.

For more general information and details on how California public schools are funded, click on The Basics of California’s School Finance System (EdSource, Inc., 2003) and the March and May issues of GET SMART.

While funding “equity” continues to be an important issue, much of the policy debate has shifted recently to the question of “adequacy.” With continuing state budget strain and competing interests laying claim to the state’s revenues, today more people are asking the question: “How much does quality education really cost?” On the one hand, many education groups (including the PTA, California School Boards Association, Association of California School Administrators, and the California Teachers Association) point out that while education costs have continued to rise and funding struggles to keep pace, the state has also embarked on a program to significantly raise California’s K-14 academic and testing standards. It is impossible, they argue, to expect California students to meet the most rigorous academic standards in the nation on a budget that is somewhere in the bottom third of states in terms of per pupil funding. On the other hand, Governor Schwarzenegger and others suggest that the state is providing sufficient funds to local school districts and that districts need to become more “efficient” in the way they spend those funds.

In April, both Governor Schwarzenegger and Secretary of Education Jack O’Connell announced the formation of separate groups designed to tackle education issues, including the questions of “adequacy” and “equity” in school funding. You can read more about the groups on the Ed Source web site. The California PTA passed a resolution at its May convention outlining the basic components of a quality 21st century education and encouraging the state to pass the legislation necessary to implement them.

In Lamorinda and Walnut Creek, local school districts have come to rely increasingly on local parcel taxes, private donations and parent volunteer hours to provide the high-quality, well-rounded education valued by parents and the community.

On November 8th, parents and community members will have a chance to vote on the future of school funding in California. Proposition 76 would significantly alter the school funding guarantees of Proposition 98 by limiting state spending to the prior year’s level plus the three previous years’ average revenue growth rates. Under specified circumstances, it would permit the Governor to unilaterally make across-the-board budget cuts, including mid-year cuts. For most school districts, where the vast majority of budget expenses are tied to teacher and personnel contracts, this could result in immediate cutbacks in the classroom and/or deficit spending. The reduction of state funding would effectively shift the burden of maintaining educational standards to local governments, school districts, parents and private efforts. The California PTA, the California School Boards Association, and the Association of California School Administrators have taken an OPPOSE position on Proposition 76 and encourage voters to educate themselves on the issue.

You may want to read the full text of the California PTA’s position statement on Proposition 76, as well as official information from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Your school’s Legislative Representative will be sharing additional information as the election approaches.