ML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
NOTES
[1] We are indebted to the work of
the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), which has prepared a series of
essays at the request of the Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for
Education – Kindergarten through University. Two papers, “The
Concept of Adequacy and School Finance” by Heather Rose and
“Towards Cost and Quality Models for California’s Public
Schools” by Jon Sonstelie, provide a strong base for
this part of the report. These papers and others are
compiled in the PPIC publication, School Finance and California’s
Master Plan for Education, 2001.
[2]
Local education agencies receiving funding directly for the provision of
a full range of educational services are generally school districts and county
offices of
education.
[3]
Michael A. Rebell. Education, Adequacy, Democracy and the Courts.
November 21, 2000.
[4] American
School Board Journal, December 2001. “How Much is
Enough?”
[5]
Heather Rose. The Concept of Adequacy and School Finance. Public
Policy Institute of California, November 2000, prepared for the Joint Committee
to Develop a Master Plan for Education – Kindergarten through
University.
[6]
National Conference of State Legislatures, Task Force on Education
Finance.
[7]
For further elaboration and discussion of the approaches taken by these
other states, see “The Concept of Adequacy and School Finance”,
Heather Rose, Ch. 3 of School Finance and California’s Master Plan for
Education; PPIC
2001.
[8]
PPIC essays on Teacher Salaries in California (Kim Rueben and Jane
Leber Herr) and Resources and Student Achievement: An Assessment (Julian
Betts and Anne Danenberg) have been invaluable in assessing this component of an
adequacy model, as well as the extensive work presented in the Texas report,
A Study of Uncontrollable Variations in the Costs of Texas Public
Education.
[9]
See Appendix A for our review of price adjustments.
[10] Julian Betts and Anne
Danenberg, Resources and Student Achievement: An Assessment, Public
Policy Institute of California, March 2001.
[11] Revenue limit add-ons
should be reviewed separately and assigned to appropriate
categories.
[12] N/A indicates
major categorical programs that would not be consolidated into one of the four
groupings proposed in this paper.
[13] We would propose to
streamline CSR now, and consolidate funding into the adequacy base in the
future.
[14] Propose standards
and accountability system used to assure student instructional materials needs
are met.
[15] Partnership
Academies to phase-out as initiatives, but we propose funding High School
Innovation grants through the initiative
process.
[16] Identify
low-incidence and severely disabled student funding separately; remainder goes
into the adequacy
base.
[17]
Local property tax revenues account for nearly one-fourth of total school
funding, and often a much larger share of annual increases. However, as
discussed later in this section, property tax revenues for schools are under
state, not local, control and simply offset state General Fund requirements for
increased education
spending.
[18]
A tax assessed on the basis of monetary
value.
[19]
Data: Legislative Analyst, 2001-02 Budget Analysis, 1999-2000
budgeted revenues.
[20]
Framework to Develop a Master Plan for
Education
[21] Sonstelie,
Is There a Better Response to
Serrano?
[22]
See Elizabeth G. Hill, Legislative Analyst, California’s Tax
System – A Primer, January 2001, to reference criteria for a well
designed tax system.
[23] The optional local income
tax surcharge is discussed in Appendix B. Based on our review, we believe that
the personal income tax is not a viable option for local school funding.
[24]
School Finance and California’s Master Plan, Chapter 9,
“The Parcel Tax”. p.
190.
[25]
E. Hill. California’s Tax System – A Primer, January
2001.
[26]
Additional tax levies are authorized for local voter-approved general
obligation
debt.
[27]
Capital outlay includes new construction, modernization, and deferred
maintenance.
[28] In earlier sections of this
report, a case has been made for adequacy in financing school operations largely
on a per-pupil basis. In making that case, the working group was guided by
research as well as the experience of other states where various forms of
adequacy models have been implemented. Similarly, the Facilities subgroup has
benefited from work done by the Legislative Analyst proposing a new model for
financing school facilities to ensure that funding is available when needed
(A New Blueprint for California School Facility Finance, May 1, 2001).
We also examined a report published by the Public Policy Institute of California
(Financing New School Construction and Modernization: Evidence from
California, Brunner, E. and Rueben, K., June
2001.)
[29]
Examples of adjustments discussed by the working group include toxic
contamination mitigation, high land costs, severe climate conditions, geologic
challenges, technology infrastructure inadequacies and other unique site
preparation requirements.
[30]
It is recommended that the state provide a Facilities Master Plan
template for districts that need technical assistance with consideration that
funding assistance may be necessary to help those districts create a facilities
master plan. This may involve developing a cost estimate upon which to gauge
appropriate level of state financial assistance.
[31] Appendix C outlines the
responsibilities of various state agencies to clarify the relationship of local
education agency and state agency roles in the provision of educational
facilities.
[32]
Kim Rueben and Jane Leber Herr, Teacher Salaries in California,
Public Policy Institute of California, November 15,
2000.
[33]
Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin, A Study of
Uncontrollable Variations in the Costs of Texas Public Education, November
1, 2000.