[Budget] compromising past promises/Compromising the future: NEW BUDGET RULES LOOSEN UP SCHOOL FUNDING + LAUSD BOARD INFORMATIVE ON CATEGORICAL FLEX

By Laurel Rosenhall and Robert Faturechi | The Sacramento Bee

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2009

Summer school. Art and music. Classes for gifted children.

Buying textbooks. Training math and English teachers. Tutoring students for the high school exit exam.

For decades, a large portion of California's school funding has been strictly designated for such categories.

Not any more.

In the budget deal crafted last week, the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger combined many of the pots of money known as "categoricals." The result is that for the next five years, principals and district administrators will have more spending flexibility than they've had in recent history.

It's a move education reformers have been pushing for years, saying a bit more freedom with the checkbook would help schools meet their students' needs.

The new state budget cuts about $2.4 billion from schools this year and changes the payment terms of another $5 billion. The reductions get even deeper next year, when schools will face an additional cut of $400 million.

About $1 billion of the cuts will be taken out of categorical funding – which makes up one-third of the money California spends on education and funds more than 60 individual education programs.

Categorical funding became popular in the 1960s as politicians tried to help disadvantaged children by spending money specifically on them and ensuring the additional cash didn't wind up in teachers' paychecks, according to a new report by UC Berkeley's law school.

As categoricals proliferated over time, however, they created a bureaucratic web of obligations for educators, who couldn't target funds where they were needed most. Money for buying new technology couldn't be used to buy books for a library. Money for checking kids' teeth couldn't be spent on counseling. Money for training principals couldn't be used to train a teacher.

"Principals said they spent a God-awful amount of their time filling out compliance forms," said Bruce Fuller, a UC Berkeley education professor who surveyed principals for a recent study.

"They've got to keep receipts, keep billing information. … Principals become mini-bureaucrats rather than working with teachers and being in classrooms."

The findings led him to recommend – in the massive "Getting Down to Facts" report Schwarzenegger released with fanfare in March 2007 – that the state consolidate categorical funding.

And that is just what the new plan does. It collapses 42 categorical programs into one block of money, and trims it by about 15 percent, or $1 billion. Schools can now use that money for any purpose.

"They could do less on school safety and more on career tech," said Jennifer Kuhn, director of K-12 education with the Legislative Analyst's Office. "They can do less counseling and have smaller class sizes. They can do less adult ed and more K-12 ed."

Or, she said, they can skip spending on those programs and give teachers a raise.

---

COMPROMISING PAST PROMISES/COMPROMISING THE FUTURE: Under the "Budget Compromise" reached in Sacramento, Schools can now use money from these categorical programs for any purpose: [smf: "for any purpose" is somewhat misleading - see Informative (following)]
• Summer school/supplemental instruction

• Regional Occupational Centers and Programs

• High school counseling

• Specialized secondary programs

• Immediate intervention/underperforming and high achieving/improving schools programs

• Gifted and talented education (GATE)

• Mathematics and reading professional development

• Principal training program

• American Indian Early Childhood Education Program

• California Indian education centers

• Adult education

• Education technology

• Deferred maintenance

• Instructional materials

• Community day schools program

• Bilingual teacher training program

• National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification Incentive Program

• California School Age Families Education Program

• California High School Exit Exam

• Center for Civic Education

• Teacher dismissal apportionments

• Charter schools

• School safety

• Class size reduction, grade nine

• International baccalaureate diploma program

• California Association of Student Councils

• Pupil Retention Block Grant

• Teacher Credentialing Block Grant

• Professional Development Block Grant

• Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grants

• Library Improvement Block Grant

• School Safety Consolidated Competitive Grant

• Physical Education Block Grant

• Arts and Music Block Grant

• County Office of Education Williams Audits

• Certificated Staff Mentoring Program

• Oral Health Assessments

• Commission on Teacher Credentialing

Schools must continue to pay for these programs with categorical funding:

• Child Development

• Child Nutrition

• Economic Impact Aid

• Special Education

• Home-to-School Transportation

• After School Education & Safety

• Class Size Reduction, kindergarten – third grade

• Quality Education Investment Act

---

The plan has the potential to revolutionize school funding in California, said Michael Kirst, a Stanford education professor and former state Board of Education president.

But it doesn't do away with categorical funding altogether. About 20 categorical programs remain intact, including some of the biggest – special education and K-3 class-size reduction.

Because the restrictions on many of the biggest categorical programs have not been eased, the new flexibility won't help cash-strapped districts very much, said David Gordon, Sacramento County's superintendent of schools.

The changes might have been more useful during a time of surplus, he said. But without money, flexibility is of little use.

"To me it's more like, 'Do you cut your arm off or your hand off?' " Gordon said. "We have a bare-bones program already going in. That basic core – the reading, the math and so on – is something you can't trade off."

Other educators said the eased restrictions will give them some welcome wiggle room.

Patrick Godwin, superintendent of Folsom Cordova Unified, expects the relaxed rules will allow his district to avoid painful staff cuts.

"The district here already had a strong music and arts program," Godwin said. "So we'll be able to use those monies to keep more counselors or keep more electives in the high schools."

---

The following is from an LAUSD Office Of Government Relations informative to the Bd of Ed & Superintendent dated February 19, 2009

SUBJECT: STATE BUDGET APPROVED WITH MAJOR REDUCTIONS TO EDUCATION CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS

Determining the Categorical Program Reductions

Categorical programs are being funded on the basis of three tiers, with the funding for Tier 1 being the most protected. In 2008-09, the Tier 2 and 3 categorical programs are cut by 15 percent or $944 million. In 2009-10, Tiers 2 and 3 are cut by an additional 4.9 percent or $268 million. Page | 2

1. Tier 1 – No reductions and no flexibility options on the use of these dedicated funds (there are flexibility options within the Class Size Reduction program itself, which are described later). The following are the protected programs in this tier:

Budget Item	Title
Tier 1
6110-161-0001	Special Education
6110-196-0001	Child Development
6110-234-0001	K-3 Class Size Reduction
6110-128-0001	Economic Impact Aid (EIA)
6110-649-0001	After School Programs
6110-601-3116	Home-to-School Transportation
6110-203-0001	Child Nutrition
Quality Education Improvement Act (QEIA)
6110-130-0001	Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)

2. Tier 2 – 15 percent reduction in 2008-09, and an additional 4.9% reduction in 2009-10. There are no flexibility options with these programs.

Budget Item	Title
Tier 2
6110-113-0001	Student Assessment Testing
6110-224-0001	Year Round Schools
6110-125-0001	English Learner Student Assistance
6110-220-0001	Charter School Facility Grant Program
6110-166-0001	Partnership Academies
6110-103-0001	Apprentice Program
6110-119-0001	Foster Youth Programs
6110-158-0001	Adults in Correctional Facilities
6110-182-0001	K-12 Internet Access
6110-167-0001	Agricultural Vocational Education

3. Tier 3 – 15 percent reduction in 2008-09 and an additional 4.9 percent reduction in 2009-10. For these programs, there is complete flexibility for a district to use these funds as it wishes.

Budget Item	Title
Tier 3
6110-246-0001	Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant (TIIG)
6110-156-0001	Adult Education
6110-105-0001	Regional Occupational Centers and Programs
6110-247-0001	School and Library Improvement Block Grant
6110-104-0001	Supplemental Instruction
6110-189-0001	Instructional Materials
6110-188-0001	Deferred Maintenance
6110-245-0001	Professional Development Block Grant Program
6110-108-0001	Supplemental School Counseling Program
6110-211-0001	Charter School Categorical Block Grant
6110-244-0001	Teacher Credentialing Block Grant
6110-123-0001	High Priority Schools Grant Program
6110-265-0001	Arts and Music Block Grant
6110-232-0001	Class Size Reduction - 9th Grade
6110-228-0001	School Safety Block Grant (8-12)
6110-243-0001	Pupil Retention Block Grant Program
6110-204-0001	CA High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)-Support and Services
6110-198-0001	CA School Age Families Education
6110-137-0001	Math and Reading Professional Development
6110-124-0001	Gifted and Talented
6110-190-0001	Community Day Schools
6110-227-0001	Community -Based English Tutoring Program
6110-260-0001	PE Teacher Incentive Program
6110-193-0001	Peer Assistance and Review
6110-248-0001	School Safety Competitive Grants
6110-107-0001	County Offices of Education - Fiscal Oversight
6110-267-0001	Certificated Staff Mentoring
6110-266-0001	County Office of Education - Williams Audits
6110-122-0001	Specialized Secondary Program Grants
6100-144-0001	Principal Training Program
6110-151-0001	American Indian Education Centers
6110-268-0001	Child Oral Health Assessments
6110-195-0001	National Board Certification Incentives
6110-240-0001	Advanced Placement Programs
6110-193-0001	Bilingual Teacher Training
6110-150-0001	American Indian Early Childhood Education Centers
6110-193-0001	Reader Services for the Blind
6110-208-0001	Civic Education
6110-209-0001	Teacher Dismissal Apportionment
6110-242-0001	CA Association of Student Councils
6110-123-0001	Sanctions
6110-144-0001	Chief Business Officers Training Program
6360-101-0001	Local Assistance - Commission on Teacher Credentialing

Additional Flexibility Options

1. School districts now have the option of increasing the K-3 Class-Size Reduction (CSR) Program from the present 20:1 restriction without completely losing this specific categorical program funding. Districts would be subject to the following penalties with these new flexibility options:

Class Size Penalty

20.5 to 21.5 (less than) 5 percent

21.5 to 22.5 (less than) 10 percent

22.5 to 23.0 (less than) 15 percent

23.0 to 25.0 (less than) 20 percent

25 or over 30 percent

2. Deferred Maintenance: The .5 percent statutory match for deferred maintenance would be eliminated for the period of 2008-09 to 2012-13.

3. Routine Maintenance Reserve: The requirement for a 3 percent reserve for routine maintenance would be reduced to 1 percent for the period of 2008-09 to 2012-13.

4. Transfer of Categorical Program Balances: The District would have the authority to transfer the 2008-09 categorical balances for any educational purposes, except for balances in the following programs:

Special Education

QEIA

EIA

TIIG

Instructional Materials

CAHSEE

Supplemental Instruction

Transportation

Program Elimination

The High Priority Program is eliminated in 2009-10.

MONEY ALONE WON'T HELP SCHOOLS

by Dan Walters | The Sacramento Bee.

August 15, 2007 - One of Arnold Schwarzenegger's early acts as California governor was to settle a lawsuit alleging that poor children attending poorly performing neighborhood schools were being denied their right to a good education.

The 2004 settlement acknowledged, in effect, that the students were being denied textbooks, qualified teachers, safe and adequate classrooms and other educational basics. Schwarzenegger agreed to spend an additional $1 billion on schools with the lowest 30 percent of academic test scores.

This week, the lawyers who brought the suit — the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Advocates — hailed the outcome in an update prepared by researchers at UCLA. "The Williams case has provided millions of California students with the basic essentials they need to succeed," co-counsel Brooks Allen of the ACLU said as the report was released.

The study found that the paucity of fully qualified teachers had been eased, that schools are being repaired and that the shortage of textbooks had dropped sharply.

"We have not yet solved every problem in every school, but the positive trends that have emerged demonstrate that this system of accountability, combined with targeted funding, works," Public Advocates co-counsel John Affeldt added.

Few would dispute that good classrooms, adequate textbooks and qualified teachers are basic necessities. And providing them is largely a matter of spending money, as the lawsuit's settlement demonstrates. What no one has proved — or disproved, for that matter — is whether spending more money does, in fact, have a significant effect on educational outcomes.

It's no small question, because it lies at the heart of California's endless debate over public education, which has raged for nearly three decades, ever since voters adopted Proposition 13 and the state started seeing a massive influx of immigrants from other countries, both of which hugely affected schools.

The education establishment has argued vociferously, with some success, that spending more on teacher salaries, smaller classes and better facilities would produce better outcomes. In the main, political leaders have endorsed that contention, although they've been unable to supply all the money that educators say they need.

Critics have countered that there is no direct correlation between spending and academic success, noting that private schools and whole states with lower per-pupil spending levels often surpass California in national academic tests, high-school-dropout rates and other measures of performance. They contend that public education needs a structural overhaul, not merely more money.

The latter contention received a boost earlier this year when a 1,700-page, foundation-sponsored, Stanford University-managed series of studies on California's schools was released. While the study team said that California's schools need more money — but was unable to pinpoint a specific amount — it also concluded that spending more without what one study leader called "systemic and fundamental reform" would not create the renaissance that everyone professes to want.

The Stanford studies and this week's report on the lawsuit settlement's implementation are indications that the great debate on California education is beginning to reach a climactic stage, when some fundamental decisions about the direction of the 6 million student system will be made.

Schwarzenegger has declared that 2008 will be the "year of education," and the many educational interest groups are cranking up. There's even a possibility that the education establishment will mount a drive to raise state taxes for schools.

Williams: WE'RE STILL FAILING OUR STUDENTS

by Camille Esch | Op-Ed in the LA Times

August 14, 2007 - On Monday, the ACLU of Southern California and Public Advocates Inc. released an upbeat progress report on the results of the settlement of Williams vs. California, a class-action suit brought on behalf of the state's most-neglected students. In the lowest-performing schools, there are more textbooks, adequate facilities and teachers with proper credentials. However, the report, like the settlement, failed to address the bigger issue: achieving "teacher equity" across the state.

More so than textbooks or school facilities, research has shown that teachers have the greatest effect on student learning and, by extension, educational opportunity. Yet in addressing access to good teachers, the Williams settlement missed a rare opportunity to compel real action to equalize access to well-qualified and experienced teachers in California.

Filed in 2000, the Williams suit was about two things: the state's failure to provide all students with the basic resources needed to learn, and students' rights to an education provided on equal terms -- kids in poorer districts should have the same education as kids in well-to-do towns. It was settled in August 2004, and legislation that would allow the state to meet the settlement terms was passed into law the same month. It set aside money for monitoring schools, repairing them and providing textbooks. When it came to teachers, however, the settlement focused only on meeting basic standards.

In essence, the settlement legislation required counties to monitor whether teachers hold minimum credentials and authorizations for the subject area they teach, to do so more frequently in the lowest-performing schools, and to make public the number of misassigned teachers and teacher vacancies. This is good as far as it goes, but it ignores factors research has shown to be more important, such as teachers' years of experience or their demonstrated ability to raise achievement. Worse, it merely monitors the situation -- the settlement didn't require state money to be spent to bring more qualified teachers into low-performing schools.

That problem is apparent, even in Monday's report tracking improvements. The research looked at four regions, including Los Angeles County, and at statewide trends. It found that there are fewer -- but not few -- teachers who lack proper credentials or authorizations in low-performing schools.

More than half of those schools have teachers who are misassigned, meaning that they are teaching a subject area or students that they are not authorized to teach. In L.A. County, 70% of those schools have misassigned teachers. Across the state, nearly 29,000 teachers are misassigned, meaning more than 600,000 students (mostly in middle and high schools) are being taught by teachers who aren't trained in the subject area to which they are assigned.

An even bigger problem is English learners who don't have teachers certified to teach them. That situation exists in more than 20,000 classrooms with 20% or more of English learners. And there are certainly thousands more, because the Williams-initiated monitoring process doesn't require reporting on such qualifications in classrooms with less than 20% English learners.

The study was content to count the number of teachers meeting minimal standards. Finding an improvement in that number is not the same thing as analyzing whether Williams vs. California has led to greater equity in access to good-quality teachers. Despite the high-profile Williams lawsuit, a federal mandate to address teacher equity and years of research showing the unfair distribution of teachers, California has never made a serious attempt to develop a robust pipeline of highly qualified and experienced teachers who will serve in low-performing schools. Instead, the state has alternately denied the problem, tried to "define" it out of existence and continued to point to unproven programs and policies as evidence that it is doing something.

Although the Williams lawsuit could have spurred investment and innovation in addressing the problem of teacher equity, it mostly just required more reporting on it. Sadly, even if the implementation of the Williams legislation continues to progress, so too will inequalities for students.

Camille Esch is a fellow at the New America Foundation specializing in California education policy.

WILLIAMS V. CALIFORNIA: The Statewide Impact of Two Years of Implementation - August 2007

WILLIAMS V. CALIFORNIA: The Statewide Impact of Two Years of Implementation - August 2007

prepared by: ACLU Foundation of Southern California & Public Advocates, Inc.

Based on research conducted by: Dr. Marisa Saunders, Lindsay Huber, Dr. Anne Marshall and Dr. Siomara Valladares, University of California, Los Angeles

complete report: http://www.decentschools.org/settlement/WilliamsReportWeb2007.pdf

smf notes: It is important to remember that Williams applies to all schools in California, not just the deciles one, two, and three schools funded under the implementing legislation and studied and reported on to the CDE, legislature and plaintiffs by county offices of education. Williams is floor, not a ceiling. - these are minimum levels of educational expectations about teachers, facilities and textbooks that apply to all schools and all California schoolchildren.

Introduction

On August 13, 2004, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the settlement of Williams v. California, a lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of California’s public school students who were denied equal educational opportunity. The settlement called for all of California’s public schools to provide at least the basic necessities of educational opportunity: textbooks and instructional materials, clean and safe school facilities, and qualified teachers. The settlement also promised students, parents, and community members new information and tools to oversee this progress.

Now, three years after the plaintiffs and Governor Schwarzenegger announced the settlement, and precisely three years after the California Legislature passed the Settlement Legislation, this report examines the impact of the Williams Settlement Legislation during the first two years of implementation—2004-05 and 2005-06—by documenting students’ access to textbooks and instructional materials, clean, safe and functional school facilities, and appropriately certificated and assigned teachers. A clear picture of progress emerges from each of the four regions examined (Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, the Greater Bay Area, and the Central Valley) and the state as a whole. In only two short years of implementation, teaching and learning conditions in California’s public school classrooms have materially improved as a direct result of the Williams standards and accountability systems. For instance, students received more than 88,000 new textbooks and instructional materials because county superintendents discovered the materials were missing and insufficient when they conducted their Williams site visits. Students have gone so far as to give visitors from a county office of education a standing ovation in appreciation for their new books. Likewise, administrators appreciate how the facilities standards have spotlighted repair needs, leading to a statewide decline in the number of schools with facility deficiencies.

Nearly 3,000 emergency repairs have already been funded through the $800 million Emergency Repair Program (ERP). As one administrator said, “Williams is right at my back helping me get things done.”

Administrators also report that textbook and facility improvements are helping them attract and retain qualified teachers, a trend that should aid schools in building on early progress with respect to teacher misassignments. The new annual teacher assignment monitoring for low performing schools has highlighted significant numbers of misassignments in many regions of the state, particularly in classes with substantial numbers of English learners, which in turn is motivating teachers, schools, and districts to explore additional training opportunities and other solutions.

Administrators and county office of education officials routinely trace the improving conditions to systemic reforms—new textbook distribution systems, revamped facility work order procedures, and new teacher training and assignment practices—that districts and schools instituted in response to the Williams Settlement. In many cases, the results have been dramatic. In schools where students previously lacked sufficient textbooks to take home at night, more than half the teachers lacked full credentials, and facilities were poorly maintained, students now all receive textbooks, including books to take home; learn in fully maintained school facilities; and have markedly improved access to credentialed teachers who are properly assigned.

Teachers and administrators explain that the new procedures and improvements also brought intangible changes that may be just as responsible for ensuring problems are prevented and students receive the textbooks, facilities, and teachers they need and deserve. Many teachers and administrators describe cultural changes within their institutions, encouraging open lines of communication, an emphasis on students’ needs, and accountability.

Williams requires that every California public school provide each student with, at the very least, sufficient textbooks and instructional materials; clean, safe and functional buildings and facilities; and permanent, appropriately trained and assigned teachers. Not all schools are meeting these standards yet, and thus the information collected through the Williams monitoring systems should be utilized quickly to develop and target new solutions, while the initiatives and efforts that have led to the remarkable improvements over the course of the first two years of Williams implementation should be recognized, shared, and redoubled.

Summary of Key Findings

TEXTBOOKS AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

• In the first year of Williams implementation, county offices of education found, on average, that 20% of decile 1-3 schools had insufficient textbooks and/or instructional materials. This figure decreased to 13% in the second year of implementation (2005-06), with 21 county offices of education finding sufficient textbooks and instructional materials in all schools.

• All four regions studied experienced a decrease in the percentage of decile 1-3 schools with insufficient textbook/ instructional materials, with Sacramento County and the Greater Bay Area experiencing the greatest decreases with drops of 17 and 16 percentage points, respectively.

• In the Central Valley, the percentage of schools with insufficient textbook/instructional materials was lower than the statewide county average in both 2004-05 and 2005- 06.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

• The average percentage of decile 1-3 schools in each county with “good repair” deficiencies or “emergency” facility needs decreased during the first two years of implementation. ✏ Forty-two percent of county offices of education found fewer decile 1-3 schools with facilities deficiencies in the second year of implementation than in the first year.

• County offices of education reported, on average, finding one or more “good repair” deficiency at 62% of schools inspected in 2004-05, compared to 47% of schools inspected in 2005-06.

• County offices of education found, on average, that 8% of the decile 1-3 schools in each county had facility conditions that posed “emergency or urgent threat[s] to the health or safety of pupils or staff ” in 2004- 05. This figure remained almost constant between the two years of implementation, with a slight decrease to 7% in 2005-06.

• The region with the highest percentages of decile 1-3 schools with emergency facility needs was the Greater Bay Area. School conditions have improved across the region, but some schools, such as many in the Oakland Unified School District, need additional attention.

• In general, administrators and teachers report that repairs on their campuses are conducted more quickly and facilities receive more attention as a result of Williams.

• The $800 million Williams Emergency Repair Program now offers grants as well as reimbursements for health and safety repairs, and the number of projects funded has increased from 149 to 2,797 in one year, helping to address the more than $803 million in “necessary repairs” documented at eligible schools by the Williams School Facilities Needs Assessments.

• Statewide, students received at least 24,932 new textbooks and instructional materials as a result of county office of education oversight in 2004-05. Students received 63,163 new textbooks and materials in 2005-06.

• Over half of all county offices of education reported that schools improved textbook distribution and tracking systems as a result of Williams.