Funding Public Education in California: A Look Into Policy and Results
Is more money the answer?
When it comes to education and funding in the United States, what often comes to mind are the popular campaign slogans and proposals of progressive politicians: free college; cancel student debt. The premium on higher education is certainly straining the potential of the United States and its population to compete with foreign nations, however, while the premium on high education is of great importance to resolve, the paramount issue of funding and outcomes at the secondary school level is significant, more so for schools that have a sizeable number of students that are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Within the state of California, many reforms have taken place since the 1970s in order to make funding per pupil more equal across and within districts. Julien Lafortune lays it out clearly in his report, covering that the 1971 California Supreme Court declared the state’s public education funding system unconstitutional in Serrano v. Priest, prompting the state to construct a funding system that would cap the amount local property tax that each district could direct towards school funding (5). Despite equalizing funding, it is important to point out that limiting the amount of funding public schools are available to receive results in more harm than good. The harm became evident when Proposition 13 was passed by voters in 1978, which “placed a cap on property tax rates and restricted annual increases on property value,” (Marine, Boser) which left states with no other option than to rely on a “shrinking pot of money” to fund schools throughout the state (Semuels). These neoliberal market reforms, the cutting taxes to favor financial powers, are important as they result in the defunding of school districts throughout California, thus impairing the quality of education and future workforce. Moreover, although California has reformed its public education system in recent years, as will be discussed and analyzed later in this essay given its weight, there is an imperative need for the federal government to become more involved in funding the public education system.
Americans still widely and largely believe that the federal government funds approximately one-third of public education, yet that could not be further away from the truth, as the federal government only funds about ten percent the cost of public education, a study with similar findings was noted in Pasachoff’s report as well. In California, the federal government covers roughly ten percent of school funding, with the state and local governments covering roughly forty-five percent each for school districts, granted, the state delivers more funds districts which lack the local property taxes in order to equalize funding (Murphy, Paluch). This is largely what’s at play in California and in many other states, but I’d like to emphasize California particularly for its decline in public school performance, much which seems to be a consequence of improper reform, lack of funding, and improper resource management — hence, the importance of involving the federal government more in public education.
As mentioned earlier, the performance of California’s public schools has declined or remained stagnant over the course of a few decades following the decision made in Serrano v, Priest, California, despite holding “…the highest GDP of any state, California ranks 41st in per-student funding, 45th in the percentage of taxable revenue spent of education, 45th in student teacher ratios and 48th in the number of staff per student,” (Flint). Regardless of California’s efforts to reform its public education funding system, whether it be the passing of Proposition 98, which set that the minimum spending requirements allotted for public education in California to 40 percent of the General Fund (Lafortune 5), which is highly dependent on the “revenues and economic climate” (Johnson 5). For those that know recent U.S. history, the Great Recession did not bode well for anyone or anything, including California’s General Fund as it is highly dependent on income taxes. As a result California’s public schools suffered a loss in funding after spending of the general fund was reduced by a few billion dollars, with per pupil spending decreasing by 23% following half a decade after the Great Recession (Murphy, Paluch). Undoubtedly, should a recession of that magnitude happen again, students, especially those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, would bear the brunt of the damage as staff would be cut and student to teacher ratios would increase. Accordingly, a federal program, one that intervenes on a larger scale than Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
The reason why a federal program is necessary is not so much because a state is incompetent with policies it implements to fund their services, but it’s centered on the fact that the federal government can run a deficit in its spending, while states and cities cannot. This supports the notion that the federal government should have a role in not only equalizing funding but use its ability to deficit spend to over-fund schools that are composed of a student bodies that are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged, so that, even during times of great economic distress, student quality of education won’t be affected. The idea of government intervention in public education is not far-fetched, as Martin and Boser explain in their paper regarding former President Johnson’s signing into law the ESEA which sought to promote “quality and equality” in the education of young people via federal funding, more specifically assisting schools with a significant amount of socioeconomically disadvantaged students through Title I funding. Moreover, Semuels goes on to discuss how ESEA was re-authorized with the passage of NCLB and the subsequent rally against federal intervention in public education, as “schools struggled to keep up with testing requirements and progress reports.” Although NCLB sought to address disparities in the quality of education between schools by increasing federal funding and making disparities transparent, it quickly earned the ire of many. However, just because NCLB wasn’t a clear victory, it demonstrated the ability of the government to increase funding to public schools, something vitally needed in California.
Although the federal government has long held the view that public education is a duty unto which the states are responsible for, recent laws have shown that it is capable of intervening in states education standards and funding in a beneficial way. In 2015, with the passage of the ESSA law, it did exactly that, by providing “…states and local school districts with supplemental funding to help address the particular needs of economically disadvantaged students,” (Heise 151) specifically by changing federal funding provided to states to block grants that states can control to direct funding to specific programs within the state that better accommodate socioeconomically disadvantaged students. On the other hand, a significant number of developed countries don’t spend as much per pupil as here in the U.S., so more funding may not actually have a significant affect on closing the gap between students.
Consider the fact that the United States spent roughly sixteen thousand dollars per pupil in 2017, with Canada, Germany, Finland, and South Korea in following respectively, where each spent many thousand less per pupil that the U.S. while achieving a high quality of education. To add on, there is a research that the benefit of spending more on per pupil funding lacks a strong connection with achievement (Chun 52–54). Even more disruptive to any presumptions held, even if notionally, is that California was spending about 90% more per pupil than is actually reported, the discrepancy reaching about twenty-five thousand per pupil in Los Angeles County, several thousand off of what was reported (Chun 55). However, the passage of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013 allowed for the more equitable distribution of funds to disadvantaged districts by giving “… districts greater spending flexibility, with the consolidation of many categorical aid programs — which fund specific areas or services — into unrestricted block grants,” (Lafortune). The significance of this being that it is easier for districts to invest in what they best see fit for their students. More importantly, the concentration grants that go to districts with a high need, “… low income, English Learners, homeless, and/or foster youth,” (Lafortune) student body that is fifty-five percent and above. This is important because it directs more money to students that attend districts where resources necessary for cultivating success in the modern world are not all present. Furthermore, the LCFF also resulted in the construction of a school accountability system to track and analyze school performance.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the school accountability system is encouraging when cross-referencing it with other systems, such as the California Department of Education’s Data Quest or Additional Reports and Data. I mention this because, while the school accountability system may be a good way to analyze other factors besides funding that could be affecting a quality return on secondary education, it can serve to mask inadequacies in schools, such as I believe I saw with the school I attended after comparing it with the more affluent and academically renowned schools located a few miles away, where despite the lackluster academic performance on Advance Placement Tests and National College Tests, the school I attended is depicted as performing well by the “college/career” metric. Although tests have their biases, they are largely one of the only methods available to tell if students are prepared for a more rigorous academic journey, at least in comparison to the manner in which the accountability system in California works.
With California having just recovered its public education funding levels from the Great Recession, and the implementation of laws that serve to best help disadvantaged students, it’s only a matter of time before we see the extent to which funding leads to academic success in public schools in California, else the issue and how to address it would supersede the local and national means attempted and find itself waiting for the U.S. to discover it at the global level, else, the consequence will be a U.S. that cannot compete intellectually with the rest of the modern and developed world in a few decades time.
Works Cited
Affeldt, John T. “New Accountability in California through Local Control Funding Reforms: The Promise and the Gaps.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 23, Arizona State University, 2015, doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.2023.
Carmel Martin, Ulrich Boser. “A Quality Approach to School Funding.” Center for American Progress, 13 Nov. 2018, 12:01am, www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2018/11/13/460397/quality-approach-school-funding/.
Chingos, Matthew, and Kristin Blagg. “School Funding: Do Poor Kids Get Their Fair Share?” Https://Www.urban.org/Sites/Default/Files/Publication/90586/school_funding_brief_1.Pdf, Urban Institute, May 2017, www.urban.org/.
Chun, Jay. How Per-Pupil Expenditures Is Associated with California High School Achievement and Graduation Rates. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2012.
Flint, Troy. “The Price Of Inequality.” Medium, Medium, 2 Nov. 2018, medium.com/@CSBA/the-price-of-inequality-db8d74a0594.
Heise, Michael. “Per Pupil Spending and Poverty’s Persistent Penalty: An Empirical Analysis of 2016 District-Level NCES Data.” Journal of Education Finance, vol. 45, no. 2, 2019, p. 149+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A621087584/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=df79f162.
Johnson, Mark Steven. “RESOURCE ALLOCATION STRATEGIES AND EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY: CASE STUDIES OF SCHOOL LEVEL RESOURCE USE IN CALIFORNIA MIDDLE SCHOOLS .” USC Digital Library, 22 Mar. 2011, digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll127/id/453346.
Johnson, Rucker C, and Sean Tanner. “Money and Freedom: The Impact of California’s School Finance Reform On Academic Achievement And The Composition Of District Spending.” Getting Down to Facts II, Getting Down to Facts II, Sept. 2018, gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/default/files/2018–09/GDTFII_Report_Johnson.pdf.
Lafortune, Julien. “School Resources and the Local Control Funding Formula Is Increased Spending Reaching High-Need Students.” Public Policy Institute of California, Aug. 2019, pp. 1–27., www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/school-resources-and-the-local-control-funding-formula-is-increased-spending-reaching-high-need-students.pdf.
Murphy, Patrick, and Jennifer Paluch. “Financing California’s Public Schools.” Public Policy Institute of California, Public Policy Institute of California, 12 Mar. 2019, www.ppic.org/publication/financing-californias-public-schools/.
Myers, John. “Column: California’s Education Funding Is at a Record High. So Why Are Schools Short on Cash?” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 12 May 2019, www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-road-map-california-school-funding-shortfall-20190512-story.html.
Pasachoff, Eloise. “How the Federal Government Can Improve School Financing Systems.” Brookings, Brookings, 28 July 2016, www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/01_education_pasachoff.pdf.
Schaaf, Kevin J. Investigating the Relationships among Teacher Social Capital, Teaching Practice, and Student Achievement Across Measures and Models, University of California, Los Angeles, Ann Arbor, 2017. ProQuest, http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/dissertations-theses/investigating-relationships-among-teacher-social/docview/1966313959/se-2?accountid=14749.
Semuels, Alana. “Good School, Rich School; Bad School, Poor School.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 25 Aug. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/.
Spector, Carrie. “Stanford Policy Analyst Looks at the Implications of California’s Proposition 15.” Stanford Graduate School of Education, Stanford Graduate School of Education, 26 Oct. 2020, ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-policy-analyst-looks-implications-california-s-proposition-15.
