TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
A World Class Finance System for a World Class Education Part 1. Adequacy in School Finance Distributing Resources Equitably Part 2. Categorical Program Adjustments Linking the Community and the School: Raising Revenues Locally Part 3. Exploring Local Revenue Options Program Effectiveness and Accountability Part 4. Allocating Revenues to Support the Effective Delivery of Services A Place to Learn and to Work Part 5. Developing and Maintaining Adequate and Appropriate Educational Facilities Appendix A: Price Differences |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education set before the
Finance and Facilities Working Group specific goals and objectives to address in
its report to the committee. These are shown in the description of our charge
from the committee, following this summary. In brief, we were asked to make
recommendations to simplify the system of school finance, to foster and support
local flexibility in the use of resources, and to support adequate funding for
the educational program and facilities.
We make recommendations in each
of five major policy areas: (1) what funds are needed for a high quality
education; (2) other funding provided in recognition of special district and
student circumstances; (3) meaningful options for local communities to get money
to their schools; (4) balancing flexibility in spending funds with strong
accountability for how funds are spent; and (5) resources to assure that
education facilities meet high standards.
Our recommendations are
grouped according to these five major policy areas. They do not, however, each
stand alone, and it is vitally important to understand that we are recommending
a fundamental shift in the way we finance schools in California. Central to this
change is our recommendation that California develop and implement a Quality
Education Model. Such a model will do two things of importance: It will act as a
benchmark for knowing how much we should expect to spend if we are serious about
achieving the world class educational standards to which we aspire. In many
ways, this will be the first time we will draw a direct, explicit link between
our expectations and the resources needed to achieve them. Second, although not
prescriptive in its application, a Quality Education Model will nonetheless
serve as an example of research-based best practices in education, updated over
time to reflect what we learn.
A Quality Education Model that leads to
adequate funding for a high quality education also can promote local flexibility
and autonomy for schools to respond to the unique needs of their local
community. It establishes a basis for a rational accountability system because
the model is built on the performance standards California has set for its
schools. Local revenue options balance the statewide emphasis on meeting uniform
standards by providing communities with the ability to supplement and enrich a
quality education in response to their own priorities. Finally, school
facilities are integrated into the characteristics of a quality education
because the link between facilities, teaching and student achievement can be
made explicit in the model.
The following section summarizes the
recommendations contained in our report.
1.
Assuring Adequate Funding
Develop a California Quality Education Model, and use that model to determine an adequate level of funding necessary to support a high quality education for every student. In furtherance of this recommendation, we urge the Legislature to establish a 13 member Quality Education Commission, representative of business, parent and education community leaders from throughout the state.
2. Distributing Resources Equitably
Authorize a limited set of differential cost adjustments, primarily
geographic in nature, that are not under the control or influence of the school
district, by establishing a District Characteristic adjustment. The additional
revenue provided to school districts in recognition of these uncontrollable cost
factors would result in similar levels of real resources available to all school
districts in the state.
Establish block grants for allocation to school districts on the basis of
student characteristics that mark the need for additional educational resources.
Further, we strongly suggest that the adjustments in this category be limited to
additional funding for (1) special education, (2) services for English language
learners, and (3) resources provided in recognition of the correlation of family
income level with student achievement.
Establish a category of K-12 grants that will be clearly identified as initiatives. These initiatives will be limited in duration and will serve one of two purposes:
Adopt specific guidelines and criteria for the Legislature to use in
evaluating proposed initiative programs.
Provide funding for state agencies, or other appropriate entities, to develop material describing best practices for the administration and delivery of categorical programs. This includes the development of standardized cost models that local agencies can use to assess program implementation.
Every new initiative program be required to have a comment period on all administrative and supervisory controls proposed by the administering agency. Alternatively, an advisory committee representative of those agencies that must administer the program may be used to develop administrative guidelines.
3. Exploring Local Revenue
Options
Approve a ballot initiative to reduce the voter approval threshold for parcel taxes from two-thirds to 55 percent.
Authorize school districts in counties where a majority of school districts
wish to join together, to propose to the electorate a sales tax increase, within
the local option SUT levy limitation, to take effect with the approval of 55
percent of the voters in a countywide election. Revenue would be divided among
the schools on a population (per pupil) basis, or as delineated in the tax
measure. Establish a mechanism to equalize tax yield to assure each county can
raise the statewide average per-pupil amount corresponding to the imposition of
similar tax rates.
Approve a ballot initiative to amend the Constitutional provisions governing the property tax to authorize school districts and other local public educational agencies to propose for approval by the electorate, with 55 percent of the voters concurring, a property tax override for the exclusive use of the public schools in the community. Assure a minimum, state-guaranteed yield per pupil through state financial assistance to communities where a self-imposed tax rate does not yield the minimum state-determined per-pupil amount for that rate.
4. Allocating Revenues to Support the Effective
Delivery of Services
Continue to emphasize the development of performance standards, and that
those standards be based both on key inputs to the educational system, as well
as outcome measures, and that the input standards are aligned with the
California Quality Education Model.
Establish a consistent and straightforward way for local schools to describe
their expenditure and programmatic decisions, to compare them with the
state’s guidelines, minimum standards, and outcome goals, and to clarify
the trade-offs implicit in budget decisions.
To support local accountability, confirm a procedure for complaint appeal and resolution, where citizen groups may establish their case for a school failing to meet state standards, with the county office authorized to investigate the complaint. This provides a mechanism for public scrutiny and pressure to correct actions of schools and districts in the event they are unable to resolve problems on their own.
5. Developing and Maintaining Adequate and
Appropriate Educational Facilities
Replace the current school facilities financing system with stable and
reliable annual state per-pupil allocations that are restricted to assisting
school districts in meeting their capital and major maintenance needs.
Adopt a ten-year transition plan during which the reliance on state General
Obligation bond proceeds allocated on a project basis to fund facilities will be
phased out and funding through annual per-pupil allocations from the state
General Fund will be phased in.
Consider authorizing a limited number of adjustments to supplement the state
base facilities per-pupil allocation. As with our recommendations for
adjustments to school operating fund allocations (see the Part 2: Categorical
Program Adjustments), we believe special circumstances related to geographic,
land use and unique school district factors may warrant consideration for
additional funding beyond the annual per-pupil grant.
Establish clear, concise and workable state facility standards that are
characteristic of facilities providing a high quality/high performance teaching
and learning environment.
Require each school district to prepare and, with appropriate public review,
adopt a five-year Facilities Master Plan to meet or exceed state facilities
standards.
Adopt necessary policy and statutory changes so that the annual budget for each school district will include a capital spending component that is reviewed and assessed as part of the AB 1200 financial and management accountability process. Technical assistance, which may be warranted based on such a review, shall be made available to school districts through regional and state agencies.
Create a statewide school facilities inventory system that will assist decision makers to determine state and local short and long term school facilities needs; collect only the most critical, basic information needed to make necessary management decisions; utilize information contained in existing data collection reports before requiring school districts to report additional information needed for the school facilities inventory system.
Give local districts autonomy to expend state and local funds as appropriate
insofar as such expenditures of funds enable the district to meet or exceed
statewide standards for adequate facilities. Local districts would conduct
required self-assessments against their Facilities Master Plans, and be required
to publicly share the results of those assessments with members of their
communities – students, parents, and community leaders –
annually.
Provide financial incentives to school districts to promote joint or shared
use of facilities. We also recommend that the state develop a technology
infrastructure among, between and within educational entities that would promote
improved education delivery and access to a wider range of education
resources.
Ensure timely adoption and implementation of OEHHA’s guidance document by DTSC and other state and local agencies for assessing exposures and health risks at existing and proposed school sites.
FINANCE AND FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CHARGE
The Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education established goals and objectives for the Finance and Facilities Working Group in its August 2000 publication, Framework to Develop a Master Plan for Education. The overarching theme governing the work of the Finance & Facilities Working Group is to simplify the system of school finance. Two key features characterize simplification: First, the school finance system must be understandable by educators, policymakers, families and the general public. Second, the system must be rational, meaning it is aligned with the instructional, governance, and accountability structures of the public school system. Put simply, the system must make sense.
The goals for our working group fall into five major policy areas:
Determine an adequate level of resources necessary to provide each student
with a high quality education. Characteristics of a system that provides
adequate funding include:
Assure that resources are equitably distributed among educational agencies,
so that students with similar needs are provided comparable levels of resources
to meet those needs.
Establish appropriate methods of allocating funds to support the effective
delivery of educational services. The Master Plan framework includes the
following objectives in support of this goal:
The Master Plan framework sets the following objectives in the area of school
facilities:
| Table of Contents | |||
| Summary | 1. Finance | 2. Equity | 3. Community |
| 4. Accountability | 5. Facilities | Appendices | Members |