Discussion Questions
Funding Schools
Draft Plan Proposal: Develop a California Quality Education Model and use it to determine a level of funding that would be adequate to support a high quality education for every public school student.
Raising money at district level
Student Fees for Higher Education
Background for the Discussion
The draft Master Plan (section on "Affordability....") states in summary that basic K-12 educational funding in California is now based on a model that is not related to actual costs, which may vary from one district to another. "This Master Plan envisions a fundamental change from a traditional focus of the K-12 financing system ... to one of adequacy, in which the essential components (personnel, materials, equipment, and facilities) necessary for an exemplary education are identified and provided." This is a necessary part of establishing accountability: only when adequate resources for a high quality education are available will it make sense to hold schools and students accountable for meeting achievement standards. To simplify the financing model and work towards meeting student needs, a Commission (Recommendation 43) would be asked to develop a California Quality Education Model. This would be used to determine the level of funding that would be adequate to support a high quality education for every public school student.
The draft Master Plan envisions that in addition to money from the state, local districts would continue to help pay for schools. Regarding Recommendation 45, the Plan states "Historically, local communities provided the majority of school funding through locally generated revenue streams. Subsequent to the passage of Proposition 13, in 1978, the State has assumed the role of providing the majority of school funding. Today, nearly 30 percent of public school funding still comes from local sources, and we believe that local communities should still share in this level of revenue generation to support an adequate base of education funding .... Districts currently have very limited ability to raise revenues locally. The bulk of 'local' revenue in the current financing system comes from the property tax, and property tax revenues allocated to local school districts are a dollar-for-dollar offset to state aid." The Plan cautions, however, that "local revenues raised from an optional tax must not become a means of mitigating inadequate basic educational funding that is a statewide responsibility. Rather, revenues raised from a local option tax must be available wholly at local discretion to augment all other funds received for the educational program."
Recommendation 45 is that "The State should provide local school districts with options for generating revenue locally to supplement their adequate funding base, and should provide local community college districts the same options for generating revenue locally." (Options are stated in 45.1, lowering the voter approval threshold for parcel taxes; 45.2, regarding a sales and use tax; and 45.3, lowering the voter approval threshold for a property tax override and assuring a state-guaranteed yield per pupil through a state equalization mechanism.)
California currently has relatively low student fees, coupled with financial aid for those families and individuals who cannot afford the cost of attendance at colleges and universities. Recommendation 49 states "The Legislature and the Governor should reform the State's approach to student charges in the public segments and maintain the Cal Grant need-based financial aid entitlement." (Recommendations 49.1-49.3 address related issues.) The draft Plan goes on to suggest that "California's policy of retaining low fees at all costs should be re-examined in light of modern realities." The 1965 Master Plan assumed that admission cost was the most important factor in steering young adults toward or away from college, discounting e.g. transportation, enrollment, child care, and various fees. Today more financial resources (grants, middle-income tuition tax credits, "institution-based aid" and loans) are available for fees, tuition, room and board and books, depending on students' financial circumstances and the kind of institution attended. However, loans - a growing proportion of the financial aid available to students - are the financing most often rejected by low-income students. The joint legislative committee "believes California should continue its commitment to low fees for students enrolled in public colleges and universities. We also recognize the benefit of taking actions to mitigate substantial increases in student fees, which research indicates have the greatest negative impact on students enrolling in community colleges."
Selected School Finance Resources
Links to many online resources related to school finance are available in the Briefing Book.
Related Issues
Finance is related to many of the topics in the Master Plan; the links below lead to pages on this site that give more information in selected areas.
Working Group Report and Recommendations
The Finance and Facilities Working Group convened by the Joint Committee to develop a Master Plan for Education organized itself in two task groups to separately consider the needs of California's K-12 public schools and those of its public colleges and universities.
Links
Results
Major recommendations of the Working Group include:Goals Addressed
The K-12 Sub-Group paid particular attention to the unique financing obligations of the state. These derive from the constitutional guarantee to free public schooling and the compulsory attendance laws of the state, plus the resources needed to ensure the high quality teaching and learning conditions that serve to reduce achievement gaps and promote achievement of all children. It was guided by the goals of achieving greater simplicity in the financing of public schools while achieving a rational financing system aligned with instructional, governance, and accountability structures for public schools.
The Postsecondary Sub-Group paid particular attention to financing for California's colleges and universities that would enable them to accommodate anticipated enrollment demands over the next two decades while continuing efforts to enhance quality. The Sub-Group was guided by the goals of achieving access, affordability, choice, quality, efficiency, cooperation, accountability and shared responsibility.