Suit Accuses L.A. Unified of Diverting Millions Meant for Needy Students

The Los Angeles Unified School District has illegally shortchanged high-needs students of millions of dollars meant for them under the state's new school finance system, a lawsuit filed Wednesday alleges.

The suit claims that improper accounting will cost those students more than $400 million by next June and up to $2 billion by 2020.

Under the state's landmark reform of its school funding system two years ago, districts receive more dollars for students who are low-income, learning English or in foster care. But districts are required to invest in increased or improved services for them.

At issue is $450 million in special education funds that L.A. Unified counted in 2013-14 as part of its existing spending on high-needs students -- a figure that helped set the amount of new required investments for them. The district has said it is only counting dollars spent on special education students who are also low-income, learning English or in foster care -- all told, 79% of them.

But John Affeldt of Public Advocates Inc., one of three organizations that filed the suit, said that money is being spent on special education needs -- not primarily to help students overcome learning challenges based on language, income or foster placement, as required by state law. He said L.A. Unified appears to be the only major school district in California counting special education funds in this way and that it has artifically inflated its current spending on needy students, lowering the additional amount that will be required.

"L.A. Unified is clearly violating the rules, and when L.A. violates rules the impact is felt in a very large way," Affeldt said. "That's undercutting the heart" of the law.

District officials said they were "disappointed" by the lawsuit, saying its allegations were based on a misinterpretation of the funding law.

"The Legislature clearly granted school districts -- which serve predominantly low-income students, foster youth and English language learners -- the highest degree of flexibility in determining student program needs," a district statement said. "We are confident that the District will be vindicated in this litigation. More importantly, we stand by our continuing commitment to serve our most disadvantaged students."

The plaintiffs, Community Coalition of South Los Angeles and Reyna Frias, a parent, are also suing Los Angeles County Supt. of Schools Arturo Delgado. In a letter last September, Delgado approved the district's accounting methods. County education officials declined to comment.

In addition to San Francisco-based Public Advocates, the lawsuit was also filed by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and the Covington & Burling law firm of San Francisco. The lawsuit asks that L.A. Unified immediately recalculate its spending and increase funding for the targeted students.

"LAUSD is breaking its promise to provide my children and millions of other students in the future, with the services they need and the law says they should receive," Frias, mother of two students in district schools, said in a statement.

By: Teresa Watanabe
Via: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lausd-funding-lawsuit-20150701-story.html

California Proposition 2: Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act

The Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act, a ballot proposition on the November 4, 2014 statewide ballot in California as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, would force the Legislature to put 3 percent of revenue into the rainy day fund. Budget stabilization or "rainy day" funds allow states to set aside excess revenue for use in times of unexpected revenue shortfall or budget deficit (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/state-local/fiscal/rainy-day.cfm).

The measure, upon voter approval, would alter the state’s existing requirements for the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), as established by Proposition 58. The BSA is a rainy day fund. ACA 1 would also establish a Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA). This proposition would require annual transfer of state general fund revenues to the budget stabilization account. It would also require half the revenues to be used to repay state debts. Additionally, it would limit the use of remaining funds to emergencies or budget deficits.

Major provisions of this initiative will:
· Transfer 3 percent of General Fund Revenues to the Budget Stabilization Fund;
· Strengthen Rainy Day fund with “unanticipated revenues”;
· Increase size of the Rainy Day fund;
· Provide flexibility in “Bad Budget Years”;
· Limits the use of Reserve Funds;
· Limits the use of excess revenues not deposited into the Rainy Day fund;
· And prohibits the Legislature from raiding the Rainy Day fund.

As for fiscal impact, the Assembly Budget Committee estimates that: “This provision would result in increased funding in the states’ “rainy day” reserve funds. It would also increase state spending on repaying budgetary borrowing and debt, and infrastructure projects. Finally, the additional reserve would reduce the extent of state cash borrowing, allowing for some savings in the short-term cash borrowing costs.” There would be no impact on the current state budget (http://www.caltax.org/members/Rainy_%20Day_Fund_Initiative_Analysis.pdf).

Read more about the Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund here: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_44,_Rainy_Day_Budget_Stabilization_Fund_Act_(2014)

California GOP sees role to protect education funds

What's a marginalized minority party to do?

It's a key question for Republican lawmakers staring down a newly enshrined Democratic supermajority. Part of the answer so far seems to be a renewed emphasis on higher education.

Both Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, and Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, have introduced a pair of bills that would freeze tuition at the University of California andCalifornia State University for the seven-year duration of the higher tax rates mandated by Proposition 30.

Since voters approved the tax measure last fall, the authors say they have a role to play in ensuring that an influx of new money from Proposition 30 is exclusively used for education. They say failing to do so would betray voters to whom the initiative was sold as a vehicle for averting more education cuts.

"A lot of people made a lot of implied promises to college students that everything would be OK if Prop. 30 passes," Cannella said. "If anyone thinks the state of California will just keep that money in a bank account," he added, "it's just not going to happen."

Democrats are more skeptical of Republican lawmakers' motives, given that they resisted putting such a measure on the ballot in the first place. Had it failed to pass, resulting cuts in higher education would likely have spurred a tuition hike.

"They're in a situation where they have been fundamentally irrelevant to most of the public policy discussions in Sacramento for quite a while now, and their first step to have some credibility is to say something in the public policy debate," said Democratic strategist Bill Carrick. "So what they've done, obviously, is say, well, people care about education, let's get out front on this."

The fact that Republicans went from opposing Proposition 30 to casting themselves as responsible stewards of the money it raised is a move born more of expedience than of principle, said Steve Maviglio, a Sacramento political consultant who worked for two Democratic Assembly speakers. He called the emphasis on higher education "a post-election gimmick."

"It's like they woke up the day after the election and decided they have a commitment to education," he said.

The focus on higher education was evident in GOP responses to Gov. Jerry Brown's budget proposal last month, which Brown trumpeted as a testament to the new-found fiscal stability Proposition 30 is set to provide.

While many Republican lawmakers praised Brown's budget, they also exhorted Brown and Democrats to ensure that the influx of new funding goes to schools.

In a written response to the budget, Republican Connie Conway, R-Tulare, called the tuition freeze bills an effort to "ensure that this revenue goes to boost higher education funding and prevent tuition and fee increases at our public colleges and universities, just as the voters intended."

In a follow-up interview, Conway affirmed that "we see our role as a watchdog."

"I believe that promises made should be promises kept, so if you're out there telling people 'if you vote for this to raise taxes then it's going to go to education,' then it should," Conway said.

Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville, has also introduced a pair of higher education bills. They would create pilot programs enabling students to obtain a degree for $10,000 and $20,000, respectively, an effort to hold down ballooning tuition costs.

"We're pricing kids out of a good education, especially the middle class," Logue said.

Democrats campaigned heavily for Proposition 30 on college campuses, mobilizing student voters by saying the ballot measure would prevent a tuition hike.

Logue is also promoting his measures to the young voter bloc, which had some of the highest turnout rates of any age group in California during the November elections.

In a recent press release, he said students have "some of the most powerful voices when it comes to getting involved in government" and called his bills "the beginning of a revolution to the very pressing issue of the rising costs of education."

The 2012-13 budget promised the University of California and California State University $125 million each in 2013-14 if Proposition 30 passed, and the schools agreed to hold tuition steady for 2012-13. Dianne Klein, a spokeswoman for the University of California, said the funding levels in Brown's budget should be enough to prevent a tuition bump this year.

Pushing to ensure that remains the case is one way for Republicans to exert influence when they otherwise have little room to maneuver, said Aaron McLear, political consultant and former press secretary to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"They have limited leverage, no question about it," McLear said. "So I think they're using what power they have to try and effect change in the state instead of just curling up and moaning about being in the superminority."

Cannella did not publicly take a position on Proposition 30. But now that the voters have spoken, Cannella said, "the equation has changed." New revenues are coming, and that presents a chance for Republicans to make the most of their diminished status.

"On a political landscape in which support for education is measured predominantly by the amount of money you're willing to spend, Republicans don't get many opportunities to play the education issue to their advantage," said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California's Unruh Institute of Politics. "By arguing about how the Prop. 30 money is going to be spent, they get a chance to look like the big guys."

via The Sacramento Bee

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/03/5161070/minority-california-republicans.html#storylink=cpy