Association of Low Wealth Schools December 2, 2006

1
Association of Low Wealth SchoolsDecember 2, 2006

• Presented by
• Caryn Payzant, Board Member, Alta Loma Elementary
  School District
• Joe Condon, President, Association of Low Wealth
  Schools and Superintendent, Lawndale Elementary
  School District
• Michael F. Dillon, Lobbyist, Association of Low
  Wealth Schools

2
Equality In Funding Its Déjà vu All Over
Again!
de ja vu \ 1 (a) the illusion of
remembering scenes and events when experienced
for the first time, (b) a feeling that one
has seen or heard something before.
3
ASSOCIATION OF LOW WEALTH SCHOOLS

• For over 30 years, dedicated ALWS members have
  been tackling another curious definition found in
  Websters dictionary

4
EQUALIZATION

• equalize
• (1) to make equal,
• (2) (a) to compensate for, (b) to make
  uniform esp. to distribute evenly or
  uniformly.

5

• Today we hope to share with you the story of K-12
  equalization funding. What it is? And, how a
  lawsuit called Serrano v. Priest, which was ruled
  upon more than 30 years ago, still affects the
  way your school is funded today.

6

• Today we also want to share with you a new
  concept of school funding called Gradespan,
  developed this year by the Assembly Education
  Committee.
• What will it mean to your elementary, high
  school, or unified school district?

7

• What does the Administration think of Gradespan
  versus Equalization? We will share what we
  have learned from the Governors Education
  representatives.

8

• Lastly, when you leave here today, we will give
  you tools for what YOU can do to educate your
  legislator regarding
• equalization
• Gradespan,
• the need for fair funding for schools or how YOU
  can get your fair share for your district.

9
EQUALIZATION THE BEGINNING

• In 1968, the Western Center on Law and Poverty
  filed a lawsuit on behalf of John Serrano Jr.,
  against the State Treasurer, Ivy Baker Priest.
  The suit became known as
• Serrano v. Priest

10

• John Serranos son was a student in the Baldwin
  Park Unified school district. At the time,
  Baldwin Park was only able to spend about
• 800 per pupil with a district tax rate of 5.00
  per assessed valuation.
• In contrast, nearby Beverly Hills Unified was
  able to spend 1600 per student, at a tax rate of
  only 2.50 per 100 of assessed valuation.

11

• Because of its tremendous property tax wealth
  (assessed value) advantage, Beverly Hills Unified
  was able to generate TWICE AS MUCH MONEY PER
  STUDENT as Baldwin Park, at ONE-HALF THE TAX
  EFFORT.

12

• In 1971, the State Supreme Court, recognizing
  that wealth related disparities, REVERSED the
  lower court decision, and ordered a new trial.
• The Supreme Court also declared
• That a system of school finance which
  conditions educational opportunity upon the
  accident of school district wealth, violates the
  equal protection clause of the California
  Constitution.

13

• In June of 1973, the Association of Low Wealth
  Schools was formed. We established an Executive
  Board. We hired a lobbyist Mike Dillon - who
  continues as our advocate at the State Capitol
  more than 30 years later.
• ALWS believed that a slight variance in funding,
  meant a great deal to our students. The state
  had equal expectations for our students, but was
  not providing equal resources.

14
SERRANO V. PRIEST

• In 1974 came a landmark ruling by Judge Bernard
  Jefferson, in Serrano v. Priest, when he declared
  that
• the state financing system for K-12 education
  was unconstitutional under the equal protection
  clauses of the California Constitution.

15
SERRANO V. PRIEST

• The state had until 1980 to reduce spending
  disparities to insignificant differences, that
  he defined as considerably less than 100 per
  pupil.

16
SO WHAT?

• Contrary to Judge Jeffersons intent, a later
  judge determined that the 100 per pupil could be
  inflated. Several years ago the Legislative
  Analysts Office estimated the actual inflated
  amount to be 335 still a significant per pupil
  difference!

17

• LEGISLATIVE REMEDIES
• After Judge Jeffersons ruling, our focus shifted
  to the legislature, where it continues today.
• SB 1499 sponsored by ALWS, sought to equalize
  school funding through the concept of power
  equalizing of the property tax. The idea was
  all school districts would be able to generate
  the same amount of revenue, with the same tax
  rate effort.

18

• AB 65-Greene, put the Serrano Squeeze on school
  funding, when the legislature adopted this
  concept in 1977. This formula gave high wealth
  districts a COLA of 85 per ADA and low wealth
  districts 150 per ADA.
• Unfortunately, Proposition 13 nullified this
  action.

19

• In 1983, with the passage of SB 813-Hart, the
  concept of bringing low wealth districts up to
  the statewide average was created.
• The bill also provided for inflation adjustments
  at the statewide average, rather than at a
  districts own revenue limit.

20

• The Settle-Up Years
• In the 1995-96 and 1996-97 Budget cycles, the
  legislature had extra money remaining in the
  Proposition 98 account
• With the help of Senator Jim Brulte and
  Assemblywoman Kerry Mazzoni and the lobbying
  efforts of ALWS, between 1995 1997 low wealth
  schools received approximately
• 600 MILLION

21

• In spite of the settle up years, there were still
  a number of school districts that were able to
  spend substantially more than their neighboring
  school district by
• as much as 500 or even 1,000 MORE per pupil
  because of their historical wealth related
  advantage.

22
90th PERCENTILE

• In 1999, Assemblywoman Lynne Leach proposed a new
  approach suggested by the Legislative Analysts
  Office.
• A new formula would be established so that
  revenue limits are increased until 90 percent of
  the states ADA received the same revenue limit.

23

• REBENCHING
• In 1997 the legislature and the Governor also
  created the problem of unintended consequences
  when it enacted SB 727 by Senator Rosenthal. SB
  727 was intended to encourage school districts to
  do a better job of increasing attendance by no
  longer allowing excused absences.

24

• To adjust, SB 727, provided for the increase of
  each districts per pupil revenue limit
  (rebenching) to compensate for the districts
  unique (1996-1997) percentage of excused
  absences.
• Now, districts are credited with less ADA, but
  receive more for each remaining unit of ADA,
  thereby suffering no fiscal loss.

25

• However, this new calculation left every district
  with a DIFFERENT per pupil revenue limit due to
  differences in excused absence rates.
• Now differences in school district revenue limits
  are no longer entirely property tax wealth
  related. Instead, they are also due to the
  absence rate of a district, or how good the
  district was (or was not) at getting excused
  absences.

26
Legislative success in 2002-2003

• 203 million!

27

• Governor Schwarzenegger also believes in bringing
  districts to the 90th percentile
• ALWS lobbied the Governors Administration when
  he first arrived in office, and stressed the
  importance of increased funding for K-12
  equalization. The Governor agreed, and with the
  assistance of Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher, a
  Republican, and Senator Joe Simitian, a Democrat
  
• 110 million was included by the Governor in the
  2004-05 Budget for low wealth schools! This
  amount is built into the base and is ongoing.

28

• THANKS GOVERNOR!
• In 2006 the Governor included funding for
  equalization in the January version of his
  Budget, calling it a priority for his
  Administration.
• We celebrated when the January Budget contained
  200 million for K-12 equalization.

29

• By the time Budget negotiations had concluded
  this year, and thanks to the Assembly and Senate
  Republicans who held out for higher funding
  levels for equalization, when the Governor
  finally signed the Budget bill, it contained
• 350 MILLION FOR K-12 EQUALIZATION!

30

• 600 MILLION
• 200 MILLION
• 110 MILLION
• 350 MILLION
• 1.26 BILLION IN ALWS SUCCESS FOR LOW WEALTH
  SCHOOLS!

31
What does this money mean for your district?

• It is built into the base and is ongoing.
• It could mean the restoration of programs you
  previously had to cut.
• It means the legislature continues to recognize
  the inequities that have existed for so many
  years and is seeking to correct them.

32
GRADESPAN FUNDING WHAT IS IT?

• Assemblyman Gene Mullin led the Assembly
  Education Working Group assigned to examine
  School Finance. Their goal was to be innovative
  and take more of a global look at how we fund our
  elementary, high school, and unified districts.
• They also wanted to examine the history of
  equalization and theres the de ja vu again
  as ALWS was called to testify before Assemblyman
  Mullins Task Force as expert witnesses on the
  subject matter.

33

• Ultimately, compiling countless testimony from
  numerous school funding experts, the Working
  Group crafted what they termed Gradespan
  funding. The new concept was amended into AB
  2531-Mullin.
• AB 2531 called for revising the method for
  calculating school district revenue limits to
  reflect differences among gradespan costs.

34

• The current revenue limit funding by the 6 size
  and type classifications would be changed to
  funding by weighted ADA within three gradespan
  ranges.
• Small elementary, high school and unified types
  would be eliminated.
• Kindergarten and Grades 1-5 would have a weight
  of 1.00.
• Grades 6-8 a weight of 1.04
• Grades 9-12 a weight of 1.20

35

• The primary rationale The current system does
  not account for the changing costs in unified
  districts, resulting from changes in the
  distribution of students among grade levels.
• Examples of Gradespan impacts
• Elementary Small benefit if K-8
• High School Status quo
• Unified Benefit if bubble in higher grades
• No one loses.

36

• Statewide Average Base Revenue Limit per ADA
  2006-07
• Elementary 5,265
• Unified 5,498
• High School 6,332
• includes average equalization aid

37

• ADD-ONS FOLDED IN
• The add-ons are
• Instructional time incentives
• Beginning teacher salary incentives
• Adjustments for unemployment insurance costs
• Meals for Needy Pupils
• PERS employer contribution offsets

38

• AB 2531, while providing for equalization of the
  new revenue limits within grade span types, still
  aims for the 90th percentile equalization target,
  dependent on additional state funding.
• AB 2531, according to one chief consultant,
  Makes transparent the differential in funding
  for different grades in the current system and,
  most importantly, establishes a basis for
  equalizing base revenues per pupil that is truly
  comparable across all school districts.

39
What happened to AB 2531?

• Passed the Assembly 57-20
• Passed the Senate 21 14
• Vetoed by the Governor

40

• THE ADMINISTRATION EQUALIZATION V. GRADESPAN
  AND OTHER ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL FUNDING OPTIONS ON
  THE HORIZON
• Reasons for Governors Veto
• Current revenue limit formulas for different size
  and type districts are appropriate.
• Significant changes to school funding model
  should not be made until the Governors Advisory
  Committee on Education Excellence finishes its
  work.

41
Next Steps

• Uncertain if a version of AB 2531 will be
  reintroduced.
• Education organizations were silent on AB 2531,
  knowing veto likely.
• Governors position not likely to change pending
  completion of Advisory Committee recommendations.

42
Equalization Still a Priority!!!

• With or without Gradespan funding, equalization
  is still a priority with the Governor and many
  legislators.
• Available state funding beyond Growth and COLA is
  always key to equalization funding.

43
Other School Funding Efforts Under Way

• California School Finance And Governance
  Getting Down To Facts
• A research project requested by Governor
  Schwarzenegger, Senate President pro Tem Don
  Perata, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and
  Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack
  OConnell.
• A project to review more than 20 studies being
  done under the Institute for Research and
  Education Policy and Practice Stanford
  University. Funded by the Gates Foundation, the
  Hewlett Foundation, Irvine Foundation, and the
  Stuart Foundation.

44

• THE PROJECT ADDRESSES THREE BROAD QUESTIONS
• 1) What do California school finance and
  governance systems look like today?
• 2 ) How can we use the resources that we have
  more effectively to improve student outcomes?
• 3) To what extent are additional resources
  needed so that Californias students can meet the
  goals that we have for them?
• Results will be made public early in 2007.
• Hope for bi-partisan consensus after research
  information is released.

45
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO GUARANTEE FAIR FUNDING?

• Know the situation in your district.
• Where does your district stand in relation to the
  statewide average.
• How has your district benefited as a result of
  ALWS efforts.
• Request a copy of your districts computer run
  from ALWS.

46
OUTREACH TO YOUR LEGISLATOR IS CRITICAL

• Is your legislator familiar with the issue of
  equalization or Gradespan?
• There are 35 new legislators entering the
  Assembly or the Senate this year. Do you have a
  new legislator in your district?
• Schedule a meeting with your legislator in the
  district or invite him or her to your school.

47
OUTREACH TO BOARD MEMBERS PARENTS

• Educating Board Members, Superintendents,
  Parents, and Teachers in the District is
  important. Prepare a packet of information.
  ALWS can assist you with some of this.
• Information is also available on the ALWS
  website.
• Timely grass roots campaigns when legislation is
  pending at the Capitol can really make the
  difference.

48
WHAT CAN THE SCHOOL BOARD DO?

• Make sure that they have an ALWS liaison to
  remain informed.
• Pass a resolution in support of full funding for
  K-12 equalization.
• Support future funding efforts that do no harm
  to districts that typically benefit from
  equalization funding.

49
Equality In Funding Its Déjà vu All Over
Again!

• Thank you for joining us!