Strings attached to California state funding impede school board flexibility
The decisions forced upon local school districts by a potential 10% cut in California’s education spending aren't the product of local administrators' priorities but of a thicket of school funding laws that dictate how state and federal money gets spent. Lawmakers have set aside numerous pots of money, known as categorical funds, which are earmarked for specific purposes—special education, after-school programs, bilingual education, and library books, for example. About one-third of school money is tied up in categorical funds. In tough budgetary times, the restrictions leave school leaders in the position of cutting what they can cut, not necessarily what they think they should. Longtime state education observers trace the rise of earmarked funds to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. The voter-approved initiative limited property taxes and reduced the tax revenue available for schools. Before Proposition 13, about two-thirds of a typical school district's money came from property taxes and one-third from the state. Since its passage, that ratio has reversed. Most increases in education spending now come from the state, and lawmakers often direct those increases to specific areas. Because more than 80% of a typical school district's budget is employee salary and benefits, it's tough to make deep cuts without shedding jobs.
There are various proposals in Sacramento to give schools spending flexibility, said Sen. Denise Ducheny, chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee. Ducheny said she hasn't decided the best way to achieve flexibility while protecting those who benefit from categorical funds. A string of recent reports have recommended simplifying California's school finance system. But each categorical program has a constituency behind it. “In the aggregate, it seems to be so irrational,” said Rick Pratt, assistant executive director of the California School Boards Association. “But when you look at it on a program-by-program basis, it's rational and has a good reason behind it.”
Source: San Diego Union-Times, 5/12/08, By Chris Moran
[Editor’s Note: The commentary below echoes the criticism of school spending decisions made far from the ground level.]
Education Week, 04/30/2008, By Paul T. Hill & Marguerite Roza
Full commentary