Parents from around the state have
reviewed the governor’s proposed 2012-13 budget, and we would like to say, loud
and clear, we are disappointed. We were hopeful that the Legislature and Gov.
Brown would put together a budget that would ensure that schools, at the very
minimum, would have stable funding for next year. We are still hopeful.
But the proposed budget doesn’t
even come close. The main issues are 1) depending on an initiative passing
after the school year has begun, and 2) moving the debt service into the school
fund. There is a silver lining, however, in the form of the newly proposed
weighted student formula. Such a system would be a huge improvement over the
existingconvoluted scheme, although there are many specifics as yet unresolved.
Nevertheless, regardless of how the money is distributed, there simply isn’t
enough, and our children in California lose.
Relying on a ballot initiative in November
Many districts are being advised by
School Services of California (consultants who make financial recommendations
to school districts) that they should plan on a $370 decrease per student in
the event the measure does not pass. By law, staffing decisions and teacher
layoff notices need to be made by March 15. School district budgets are
required to be balanced and approved by June 30. Our school districts are in a
quandary. Do they base their budgets and staffing decisions on the worst-case
scenario, or do they base them on a hopeful outcome that depends on the
governor’s initiative passing, which could lead them into an even more
precarious financial situation such as insolvency?
The proposed budget, which includes
revenues from the ballot measure even though it may not pass, essentially maintains
funding at its current level. If the ballot measure fails, there is likely to
be an additional $4.8 billion (the equivalent of three weeks of school) cut
from education. In order to offset this potential cut, schools are forced to
plan to issue layoff notices (thus increasing class sizes), to cut programs
(including libraries, art, and music, if they still have those programs), and
to eliminate or reduce transportation, vice principals, counselors, and other
staff. Should they simply hope for the best and risk putting their district in
further financial jeopardy if the initiative does not pass?
Now let’s imagine our districts
make the financially responsible decision and budget on real numbers – unlike
Sacramento’s – eliminating thousands of teachers and programs. Come November –
hooray! – the initiative passes! How will those school districts hire back all
the teachers who have been laid off? Can they add days to a school year that
has already been set, keeping in mind that each of the 1,000-plus districts
will have to negotiate with their local unions in order to do so? How will
parents adjust their schedules to deal with this uncertainty? Either way, one
thing is for certain: This situation is a lose-lose for kids.
Shifting debt-service payments to Prop 98
In the current budget proposal,
$2.6 billion in general obligation bond debt-service payments would be shifted
to Proposition 98 in the event that the governor’s revenue measure fails. Let
me explain in lay terms what this means. More than 20 years ago, in an effort
to save education funding, the voters passed “Proposition 98,” a constitutional
mandate for a minimum level of funding for our schools, roughly 40 percent of
the General Fund. Because of dwindling resources and other priorities, the last
four governors have amassed debt and have tried to work around Prop 98 to keep
expenses down. It’s as if thestate racked up a lot of charges on its credit
card but can’t pay them off. Previously, the general obligation bond debt
payments have been paid from the general fund, not the portion that is set
aside by Prop 98 for education. However, if the governor’s initiative fails in
November, he wants to make the payments for K-14 debt-service out of the Prop
98 funds. This reduces the amount of funds in Prop 98 that can be sent to
districts to operate their schools. Not only is this debt-service payment
proposal unprecedented, it was not part of the agreement when the bond was
issued.
Even the Legislative Analyst’s Office has serious
policy concerns with this, and notes that “the proposal would result in notably
greater volatility for education programs.” It is unacceptable to burden our
children with this debt, and the last thing we need is more volatility in
education funding.
Previous generations knew the key to our state’s
future was properly educating our future leaders. California was once known for
its high-quality public education. However, recent leaders in California have
used gimmicks to fund our schools and have allowed education funding per pupil
to drop from 27th to 47th in the time since the passage of Proposition 98. Even
if the governor’s proposed tax increase passes, we are still funding far less
than what the voters demanded when they passed Proposition 98 more than two
decades ago. The governor and the Legislature need to support education instead
of finding loopholes. They need to be honest with the voters and walk the talk.
The proposed budget does not allow our school districts to properly educate our
youth and is unacceptable.
Good start on financing reform
Just so we do not leave you
completely depressed, let us revisit that silver lining. The governor has
proposed a major overhaul of the way money is distributed to schools. He has
recommended a system known as a “weighted student formula.” (Click
here for more information.)
Rather than the current, convoluted system of more than dozens of education
funding streams with restricted purposes, a weighted student formula gives
districts money for each student based on his or her needs, and the money
follows the student. So, if a student changes districts, the money moves with
that student. Implemented properly, this will lead to less red tape and more
equity. We thank the governor for recommending this long-overdue change.
Empowering local school districts to determine their varying needs is an
important step in the right direction. Since there isn’t much information
released about his plan, it is hard to stand fully behind it, as it seems to
have overlooked high school districts, but we remain pleased with the way it’s
headed.
So what do parents want to see in
the budget? It’s simple. Enough money and resources for all kids in California
to have access to a high-quality education. There is no way to provide an
excellent learning environment for kids if each year we are forced to lay off
teachers, cut programs and staff, and budget on uncertainty. We are asking the
governor, the Legislature, and our fellow citizens to think long and hard about
what message this sends to the children of California and what the long-term
consequences are of failing to adequately educate this generation.
If children and the future of our state are not our
number one priority, what is? What is our request of the governor and the
Legislature? Work together to build a budget that reflects our values as
parents and as California citizens. We promise to have milk and cookies waiting
for you when you get home.
Crystal Brown is the Board
President and a co-founder of Educate Our State, a parent-led, statewide campaign
to unite the voices of Californians in support of high-quality K-12public
education and demand real change. She is the parent of three children attending
public school in San Francisco.
No comments:
Post a Comment