California Budget Proposal Increases Funds for K-!2 Schools.

 From. California Budget and Policy Project 

Revised Budget Funds a Large Cost-of-Living Adjustment for K-12 Education

The largest share of Prop. 98 funding goes to California’s school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education (COEs), which provide instruction to 5.9 million students in grades kindergarten through 12. The governor’s revised spending plan uses one-time dollars to help fund a large cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to the state’s K-12 education funding formula — the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Specifically, the May Revision:

• Provides a $3.4 billion year-over-year increase for the LCFF. The LCFF provides school districts, charter schools, and COEs a base grant per student, adjusted to reflect the number of students at various grade levels, as well as additional grants for the costs of educating English learners, students from low-income families, and foster youth. The May Revision would fund an 8.22% COLA for the LCFF in 2023-24, up from the 8.13% COLA estimated in the January budget proposal. The revised spending plan proposes to use $2.7 billion in one-time dollars to help pay for the large increase in ongoing support for the LCFF. According to the Assembly Budget Committee, the May Revision would provide an estimated $79.8 billion in funding for the LCFF in 2023-24.
• Cuts approximately $2.5 billion from the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant. The 2022-23 budget agreement provided $7.9 billion for a one-time block grant to K-12 school districts, COEs, and charter schools allocated based on the percentage of enrolled students who are English learners, students from low-income families, or foster youth. The May Revision proposes to reduce this funding to approximately $5.4 billion. 
• Cuts the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Discretionary Block Grant by approximately $600 million more than proposed in January. The governor’s January budget proposed reducing, from nearly $3.6 billion to approximately $2.3 billion, one-time funding for a per pupil discretionary block grant provided to local educational agencies (LEAs) in the 2022-23 budget agreement. The May Revision proposes to reduce funding for the block grant to approximately $1.8 billion. 
• Increases funding by approximately $300 million for school nutrition programs. For the 2022-23 school year, California established a Universal Meals Program that provides two free meals per day to any public K-12 student regardless of income eligibility.  The revised spending plan includes an additional $110 million in one-time dollars and approximately $191 million in ongoing dollars to fully fund increased demand for the program in 2022-23 and 2023-24. 
• Provides $80 million in ongoing funding for COEs serving students in juvenile court. The revised spending plan states these additional resources would be used to support staffing and programming requirements for students in alternative school settings. The May Revision also proposes to increase COEs’ LCFF base grants by 50% for the additional year of assistance they would provide, based on a proposal in the governor’s January budget, to school districts with performance issues. 
• Provides $20 million for the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development Program (BTPDP). The BTPDP was established in 2018, but it expired in June 2021. The May Revision would reinstitute the program and make funding available through 2028-29.  
• Funds an increase in the COLA for non-LCFF programs. The May Revision increases the COLA for several categorical programs that remain outside of the LCFF to 8.22% from the 8.13% COLA provided in January.
• Maintains $300 million for a proposed “equity multiplier” add-on to the LCFF. The revised spending plan would continue to provide ongoing funding proposed in January for LEAs with large shares of students from families with low incomes. Additionally, the May Revision states that it reflects changes to the state’s K-12 accountability system to clarify those proposed in January “including additional assurances that all LEAs with low student performance address disparities in the preparation of their educators.” 
• Proposes to screen students in kindergarten through 2nd grade for risk of reading difficulties. The May Revision proposes to make these screenings mandatory by the 2025-26 school year and would require LEAs to provide services to identified students, including those at risk of dyslexia. 
• Extends the deadline for spending Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) funds. The 2022-23 budget agreement provided $4 billion for the ELOP. The May Revision extends the  June 30, 2023 deadline for spending ELOP funds received in 2021-22 and 2022-23 to June 30, 2024.

Realizing the Promise of LCFF

 

Public Advocates was instrumental in shaping the Local Control Funding Formula, California’s landmark school funding policy. Signed into law in 2013, LCFF is one of the boldest public education experiments any state has ever taken to improve student outcomes through greater equity, transparency, local accountability, and meaningful community engagement. However, while it changed the way public schools were funded, a decade into this legislation, there is more work needed to address systemic inequities that create barriers to student success.  We are proud to share our findings from the research and recommendations for leadership in our latest report, Realizing the Promise of LCFF: Recommendations from the First Ten Years. Using 72 districts as case studies, this report, written with our partners at the ACLU Southern California, reviews LCFF implementation to offer guidance on improving equitable outcomes and community engagement. While the report highlights some bright spots, it underscores the need for significant innovation in order to strengthen accountability measures that can ensure a comprehensive strategic planning process and better engagement. Top level recommendations include:  More oversight, support and authority for County Offices of Education to hold districts accountable Investing in an innovative, usable, web-based strategic planning platform that can make funding transparent and easier to understand Strengthening community engagement with families, students, and community based organizations to meaningfully address disparities in student outcomes and improve opportunities for all students, including Black students Establishing the LCFF was a critical first step, but 10 years later, as California enters the next phase of this bold work, it must continue to improve this system to ensure high-needs students in our state receive the resources they need to thrive in school and beyond.

Read the Report In  I In n

Sacramento City USD Fails English Learners

 The Education Committee of LULAC/Sacramento has recommended for over 4 years that the funds allocated to Sacramento City Unified School District specifically to improve the educational achievement of English Learners be used specifically for that purpose.

( see example below of 2018 submission).  Supplemental funds carried over from one year to the next should not be used for projects other than serving English Language Learners.

 

We note with interest the presentation to the Special Board meeting of 3.11.21 on LCAP draft materials.

The district is now preparing its LCAP plan ( Local  Control Accountability Plan) and it is time for us to again make recommendations.  Our recommendations for prior years have been ignored. We request that our proposals for this year be included in the report to the board scheduled for May 5, 2021, and that our requests be included in the documents sent to Sacramento County Office of Education for their assigned task of monitoring the development of LCAP proposals on matters of accountability. 

 

We  note the requirements of LCAP to include community participation in development of the district plan.  We assert the reflections of the district advisory committees are important but inadequate to the requirements of community participation required for the development of LCAP. 

 

The next presentation will be at the SCUSD Board of Education meeting on May 6, 2021. You can participate on line. 

Education Committee.

League of United Latin American Citizens, / Sacramento 

 

 

Legislative summary.  LCFF

 

Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires funding pursuant to the local control funding formula to include, in addition to a base grant, supplemental and concentration grant add-ons that are based on the percentage of pupils who are English learners, foster youth, or eligible for free or reduced-price meals, as specified, served by the county superintendent of schools, school district, or charter school. Existing law requires the State Board of Education to adopt regulations that govern the expenditure of funds apportioned pursuant to the supplemental and concentration grant add-ons.

 

AB 533 Proposal.

 

This bill would require the State Department of Education to develop, on or before January 1, 2022, a tracking mechanism for school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to use to report the types of services on which they spend their supplemental and concentration grant funds. The bill would require each local educational agency, commencing July 1, 2022, to annually report to the department the types of services on which it spends its supplemental and concentration grant funds using the tracking mechanism developed by the department. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

 

 

 

State Audit of LCFF

 

State Auditor’s Report  LCFF funding

 

https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2019-101.pdf

 

 

LCFF require districts to use these funds to increase or improve services for intended student groups, the regulations do not create an effective means of ensuring that districts do so. Districts must identify in their annual local control and accountability plans (LCAPs) the supplemental and concentration funds they expect to receive and spend. LCAPs provide a key opportunity for stakeholders to ensure that districts direct the funds toward the intended student groups. However, districts can treat any supplemental and concentration funds that they do not fully spend in a given year as base funds in the following year, meaning that the districts can use the funds 

for general purposes that do not directly serve intended student groups. Despite this lack of r 

….

Moreover, even when districts did report supplemental and concentration funds in their LCAPs, we had difficulty determining whether or how the districts’ use of those funds increased or improved services for intended student groups—a difficulty 

that stakeholders likely share. One challenge is that the current requirement districts must meet for spending supplemental
and concentration funds to benefit intended student groups is essentially meaningless. Specifically, a district must describe in its LCAP how it will increase or improve services for those students in proportion to the amount of supplemental and concentration funds it receives. However, it is unclear how a district would demonstrate that it increased or improved services by a proportion, and neither county offices of education nor the California Department of Education are responsible for verifying whether districts actually met the required proportional increases. 

Further, although districts must report in their LCAPs information about the services on which they have spent their supplemental and concentration funds, they often do not effectively analyze whether those services have been successful. As a result, stakeholders may struggle to hold districts accountable for continuing to fund effective services and discontinuing ineffective services. 

To ensure that intended student groups receive the maximum benefit from supplemental and concentration funds, the Legislature should take the following actions: 

• Amend state law to require districts and other local educational agencies to identify any unspent supplemental and concentration funds by annually reconciling the estimated amounts of
  these funds they include in their LCAPs with the actual amounts of funding the State reports apportioning to them. 
• Amend state law to specify that unspent supplemental and concentration funds at year‐end must retain their designation to increase and improve services for intended student
  groups and be spent in a following year, and it should require districts and other local educational agencies to identify in their LCAPs the total amounts of any unspent supplemental and concentration funds from the previous year. 

 

 

·       As Figure 3 indicates, a number of different state and local entities are involved in overseeing and making decisions related to LCFF funding. For example, local stakeholders, such as parents, teachers, and other interested groups, provide input and oversight to ensure that districts develop clear and informative LCAPs. Stakeholders review and provide comments on a district’s draft LCAP. In addition, they can submit complaints to the district or county office, and appeal to CDE, if they believe a district has violated state law in completing its LCAP. 

·       In most instances, county offices are responsible
for approving LCAPs for the districts within their counties.2 Figure 4 depicts the LCAP development and approval process. The California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) has developed an LCAP approval manual that county offices can use as a guide during their reviews. A county office must approve a district’s LCAP if the LCAP meets the conditions listed in the text box. If a county office rejects a district’s LCAP, it must provide assistance to that district that focuses on revising the LCAP so that the county office can approve it before October 8 of that year. This date is the deadline for county offices to approve LCAPs. 

 County Office of Education

 

LCAP Approval Requirements for County Offices 

The county office must approve a district’s LCAP on or before October 8 if it determines all of the following are true: 

·       The district’s LCAP adheres to the LCAP template. 

·       The district’s budget includes expenditures sufficient to implement the services included in the LCAP. 

·       The district’s LCAP adheres to the expenditure requirements for supplemental and concentration funds. 

·       Districts must consult with stakeholders, including parents and teachers, in developing their LCAPs. They must hold public meetings to solicit recommendations from members of the public regarding the services and expenditures in their LCAPs. 

  

New Sacramento Bee Reporter Accepts and Uses Deceptive Claims of Data on"Personalized Learning " in Response to Covid School Closings

Sac Bee Reporter accepts and uses deceptive data on “  Pesonalized  Learning” schools response to Covid.  
Welcome to Sacramento. 

In the Bee Article  “ Lawmakers, advocates say budget hurts top schools, “   published in the Bee on July 5,  new  Bee reporter Mackenzie Hawkins makes a series of claims   based upon a fundamental, and highly partisan claims.  Hawkins has been at the Bee for 2 months. Prior to this position she wrote for the Yale News, which may have been a student intern position.   Note, recognize that reporters often do not write the titles of pieces. 

Hawkins  says, 

“But under this year’s education budget, lawmakers and education advocates warn, the state will abandon its traditional allocation formula in favor of a system that harms the very schools — disproportionately, charter schools and personalized education programs — that have performed best under pandemic pressures.” [ no evidence  provided of the last phrase… that have performed best under pandemic pressures]

“California’s public schools usually receive money based on a combination of the prior year’s funding and the current year’s average daily attendance — a metric that reflects not the number of students enrolled, but rather how many students show up each day. 

Historically, this has meant that if a student switches schools from one year to the next, the money to fund their education moves with them. That will change under budget trailer bills AB 77 and SB 98, which allocate next year’s funding based on attendance through February 29 of this year.”
here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article243822982.html#storylink=cpy

This statement is inaccurate.  State funding of schools in California is based upon the Local Control Funding system, LCFF.    

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted in 2013. The LCFF was designed to be a more equitable system of funding, with the goal of providing additional funding for the highest needs students. These subgroups of students include English learners, low-income students, and foster children. If the student groups targeted for assistance make larger than a majority of enrollment, districts receive additional concentration money.

          Schools do not receive money sole  based upon Average Daily Attendance, as the reporter asserts.  They receive money based upon ADA and  the state also gives additional state funds to districts based on the number of low-income students, English learners, foster children and homeless youth they serve.

There is a significant difference between these two

Reporter Hawkins goes  on to say, 

“Proponents say the legislation preserves educational equity and ensures adequate funding in the most disadvantaged areas. But according to charter school advocates and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, turning an emergency measure into a permanent policy undermines school choice and forces top-performing schools to turn away students — often, those served poorly in traditional schools — looking for another option. “[There is no evidence for the  claimthat the funding would force top performing schools to turn away students because we do not know which are the top performing schools.]

“What the state is essentially proposing is we’re going to protect and essentially reward failing schools, and we’re going to punish schools that have proven that they’re performing well and successful in this COVID crisis,” Association of Personalized Learning Schools & Services (APLUS+) Director Jeff Rice, who represents 75 personalized education programs in California, told The Sacramento Bee. “While so many other public schools had to completely shut down their educational services, we kept them going without missing a heartbeat.”
 here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article243822982.html

Yes, that is their assertion.  They are correct that the schools stayed open.  But, there is no evidence that these were top performing schools, only that the schools were kept open.   The reporter stated this without analyzing the factual claim.   Yes, they kept the personalized learning schools going, but with no evaluation of their effectiveness.  No one knows if these on line connections were significant learning experiences,  or were they just on line efforts to cover up and/ or avoid social education?  We just do not know.  And,  no evidence that the "schools" are top performing.  The Personalized learning and Charter School folks  propose to change the allocation of funds and to stop the distribution based upon the current equity provisions of  LCFF.   That is, they would move money from current schools to their on line “ personalized” instruction.. what ever that is. 

The  writer makes the statement because advocates for charter schools, and the Charter School Development Center want readers to consider changes in  funding by ADA.  It is  more than unfortunate that  a Bee reporter  made this report without providing accurate, complete, and balanced coverage.   For coverage of LCFF  I recommend the news source EdSource.

The charter school advocates want to focus the discussion on shifting demographics caused by the Covid crisis and the closing of schools.  They want to only consider the changing enrollments.  However, that is intellectually dishonest.  The budget trailer bills were not drawn up based upon their assertion, they were drawn up based upon the agreed upon criteria of the LCFF that promote equity in funding.  

In the two months since the  California schools closed, a number of families have indeed moved their children out of public schools and into a network of charters.  They needed to “do something” with their children.  Many of these charters  had pre existing on line education programs.   These programs are substantially not evaluated.  The only measure being used is that parents moved their children. Moving children in a crisis does not prove that the schools are failing nor that on line personalized programs are “top schools”.    Now the corporate sector – with the Bee’s assistance- is seeking to gain funds by urging the legislature to  take  funds from public schools to fund these on line  coaching events.  

Here is a June research report on how the response to the virus is effecting K-12 schools.

https://www.shankerinstitute.org/event/coronavirus-education-spending

There isn’t much research on the effectiveness of on line education.  What research exists concentrates on Moocs type courses that are substantially different than the individualized on line connections promoted  by this effort to reallocate funds by the charter developers. 

Here is an example of research on on-line learning
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2017.00059/full

If any reader has evidence or research on the actual performance in this “personalized learning” in k-12 please share it.

Schools Divert Education Funds for Police

Public Advocates has uncovered rampant and illegal misspending by school districts on law enforcement throughout Southern California. In a just-released report, 56 districts were found to have illegally diverted money intended for high-need students towards police, security guards or other hardening measures such as surveillance equipment. These actions violate the state’s education funding law and only further criminalize high-need students, and students of color, especially Black students. Altogether, more than 40% of the 136 districts examined spent on school police or security, cheating over 1 million high-need students of tens of millions of dollars of services. Click to see if YOUR school district is among the ones spending money illegally, and see how you can take action. This report was co-authored with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Gente Organizada, and the Pomona Students Union.

See the report!

We are also holding a webinar on March 12th from 5:00-6:00pm to help students, parents and advocates take action.

Sign up for the webinar

CA's Fair Funding Formula Makes More Possible for Schools

Note; LCFF is not currently serving Sacramento City Unified students well.



Here is the LULAC (Sacramento)  demand.

Legal Services Department,

Sacramento City Unified School District                        Jan. 29, 2020

We are submitting this request pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code

§§ 6250 et seq.) for copies of certain records in the possession, custody, or control of SCUSD. Our request encompasses the documents falling within the specific categories set forth below.

Specifically, we request copies of the following documents:

1.     Documents showing the actual amount of funds received by SCUSD from LCFF funds, including supplemental and concentration funds designated for support of English Learners for 2016, 2017, 2018. Please disaggregate the indicated funding between LCFF support for base activities and LCFF funding for supplemental and concentration efforts.

2.    A list of the SCUSD budget categories (i.e. teacher salaries, teacher assistants, consultants, teaching materials and other services) that reveal the amount of dollars from the LCFF funds, including supplemental and concentration funds allocated and spent for services to English Language learners in the district. Include a document showing how the district decides on expenditures from supplemental and concentration funds. How does the district distribute the funds between designated target groups (i.e. English learners, Foster Children, Special education, low income students)?

3.    A listing of budget allocations and expenditures for each of the categories listed above (teachers, teacher assistants, administrators. consultants, as well as copies of the pages of documents where these allocations and expenditures are described.

More information to follow. 

LCFF and Charters

A startling report uncovers a systemic failure by California charter schools to meet their obligations under state law. Among the findings, not a single school analyzed properly documented how it was increasing or improving services for high need students. Statewide, charter schools receive more than $900 million annually to provide these services.

Learn more: https://bit.ly/2OCfZD8 #CAcharterschools

English Learners Need Your Support -Sacramento

The Community Priorities Coalition in Sacramento announces that it will present its alternative budget for Sacramento City Unified at Board meeting on Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 6 PM. at 5735 47th. Avenue, Sacramento. We provide an annual alternative budget recommending how the district should use the major funds received under the Local Control Funding. 

SCUSD receives about $367 million each year under LCFF.  Of that money some $6.7 million is generated for English Learners in the schools.  In each of the last 3 years, only a small portion of these funds have been spent on EL learning.  The remainder apparently has been allocated to the district reserve fund.  The district claims it will be spending into a deficit next year.  They hide the money.

Teachers, parents and interested persons are welcome at the Board meeting at the Serna Center starting at 6 pm.  

I will be addressing the board as  Co- Chair of the Education Committee of LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens. Here is a draft of what I will say.  You are invited to come and give your view also. 

I speak tonight in support of the alternative budget presented by the Sacramento Community Priorities Coalition. 

Sac City Unified has a Budget Problem - And its not the Teachers

 Sacramento City Unified’s plan for Local Control Funding is on their web site.

   LCAP Timeline and Process-  here.

See video in post below.

 SCUSD outlines its LCAP development process, Community Planning Process, timeline, and lists potential community partners to engage with in LCFF implementation. A new budget has been submitted  and should be on the web site this PM. 

Here is a counter  submission  by the Community Priorities Coalition in response for the 2017/ 2018 school year.
Our Budget proposal reflects our communi ty' s priorities and we request that you consider our Budget along with the District's staff Budget in making a very important decision on providing the highest qualit y of education for all children.

May 4, 2017

To: Jay Hansen, President

Jessie Ryan, 1st Vice President Darrell Woo. 2nd Vice President Christina Pritchett. Member Ellen Cochrane, Member

Mai Vang, Member Michael Minnick, Member Natalie Ross. Member

Jose Banda, Superintendent

Dear Board of Trustees and Superintendent:

The Sacramento City Community Priority Coalition (CPC) is pleased to submit to the Sacramento City Unified School District its 20 l 7-18 Budget as another budget scenario to consider.

The CPC coalition member organizations and groups consist of Black Parallel School Board, Building Healthy Communities. Hmong Innovating Politics, La Familia Counseling Center. Making Cents Work, PRO Youth and Families , Sacramento Area Congregations Together, Democracy and Education Institute, and Public Advocates Inc.

Based on the input of our respective communities. the CPC recommends three major priorities for both the LCAP and the LCFF that we conclude will better serve the students of our communities. Those priorities include:

•       Class size adjustments/reductions in select high need schools - beginning with grade 4-6 and gradually progressing to higher grades after three years of LCAP implementation.

•       Culturally competent professional development to enhance school climate and ensure the use of effective and restorative discipline policies in all schools for all students.

•       After school and/or other early intervention supports/programsdesigned to improve and further classroom performance.

The district needs to attract quality teachers that reflect the diversity of the students and continue class-size reduction, address inequities regarding our low-income and high needs students, increase graduation rates, improve professional development, and continue to improve community outreach and involvement year around. Monies allocated through the Local Control Funding process are required by law to be spent on increased or improved services and actions that are principally directed to meet the needs of specific target populations: low income, English Language Learners, foster children, special education.

In addition , to increased funding for class size reduction beyond grades K-3: specific funds should be allocated to meet the needs of the designated targeted populations. For example, English Language Learners need additional instructional assistance and increased efforts to involve their parents in their education programs. including bilingual counselors , teachers, social workers and other staff. Funds should be allocated to establish designated additional programs for ELL students in those schools with large numbers of English Language Learners. These programs might include the use of additional certificated personnel, and/or classified staff.

We recommend that the budget adopted by Sac City Unified School District clearl y and specifically designate where funds will be spent to meet these target populations. At present, we are unable to track funds from the district budget to serving these target students. We strongly recommend that this change. The district should specifically and clearly indicate the amounts of funds planned for specific services and actions that are increases or improvements principally directed to meet the needs of each target group, and which funds have been planned used for spending on combinations of these groups, and which funds have been used for all students districtwide, in addition to funds allocated by school site, which the district currently identifies . This level of transparency is necessary for parents , students and the community to be involved in a meaningful way in the LCAP development process and other district and school site decision making processes.