Governor Jerry Brown’s Inaugural address includes the following remarks about education. Governor Brown understands that schools need adequate funding to succeed. One of his biggest challenges when he took office was to begin to restore the billions that had been cut from public schools by his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think he is wrong about Common Core, which caused California to ditch some of the best state standards in the nation and will draw hundreds of millions, if not billions, out of strained school budgets (Los Angeles was about to spend over &1 billion on iPads for Common Core testing until the deal fell apart a few months ago). But, reasonable people differ, and time will tell whether the investment in Common Core is worth it.
Governor Brown said:
“Educating the next generation is fundamental to our collective well-being. An issue that has plagued our schools for decades is the enormous barrier facing children from low-income families. When my father was governor, he sought to remedy the wide inequities among different school districts by calling for equalization of funding. His efforts were not successful.
“Now – decades later – we have finally created a much fairer system of school funding, called the Local Control Funding Formula. Under the provisions of this law, state funds are directed to school districts based on the needs of their students. Districts will get significantly more funds based on the number of students from foster care, low-income families and non-English-speaking parents. This program also breaks with decades of increasing centralization by reducing state control in favor of local flexibility. Clear goals are set, and their enforcement is entrusted to parents and local officials. This puts California in the forefront of educational reform.
“After years of underfunding and even borrowing from our local schools, the state now has significantly increased its financial support for education. Next year schools will receive $65.7 billion, a 39 percent increase in four years.
“The tasks ahead are daunting: making sure that the new system of local control works; recruiting and training tens of thousands of teachers; mastering the Common Core Curriculum; and fostering the creativity needed to inspire students. Teachers need to be held accountable but never forget: they have a tough job to do. They need our encouragement, not endless regulations and micro-management from afar.
“With respect to education beyond high school, California is blessed with a rich and diverse system. Its many elements serve a vast diversity of talents and interests. While excellence is their business, affordability and timely completion is their imperative. As I’ve said before, I will not make the students of California the default financiers of our colleges and universities. To meet our goals, everyone has to do their part: the state, the students and the professors. Each separate institution cannot be all things to all people, but the system in its breadth and diversity, through real cooperation among its segments, can well provide what Californians need and desire…..”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Until we address the culture of certain low-performing districts in California and look at the practices and attitudes in the high-performing districts and allow the trained educators to have control, both teachers and administrators, not too much is likely to change.
LikeLike
changemaker,
“. . . the culture of certain low-performing districts. . . ”
What is that culture and please name which are those “low performing districts”?
Thanks,
Duane
LikeLike
Hee, hee. I love essential questions. They do get down to the nitty gritty.
Are you going to Chicago in April?
How did you find out about May King’s offer?
LikeLike
Yes, I’ll be there. I was there in Austin last year, that was one hell of a drive. Chicago will be a piece of cake drive. I read about it in the post.
LikeLike
My son lives in Austin… too bad it is not there, I could have seen my grandkids.
Get my phone number and email form Diane, so we can plan to meet.
LikeLike
Feel free to contact me at my home email: dswacker@centurytel.net
LikeLike
Poverty is not a culture. Poverty is reduced through building a viable economy. Throwing money at the schools in low performing districts will not change the economy. Establishing jobs with a decent wage will. On the other hand you can’t have employees unless you have employers and California is a tough place to do business.
LikeLike
“look at the practices and attitudes in the high-performing districts”. I can tell you what these “practices and attitudes” are…it is called being affluent.
LikeLike
The biggest indicator of school achievement is income level. Teachers in poor districts work mightily to level the paying field for their students. I hope you’re not implying that somehow all the great teachers end up in wealthy districts, and somehow lazy teachers who don’t care flock to work in low income areas. This is a canard started by people who COULD do something to address poverty, but prefer to throw blame on teachers and unions.
LikeLike
Funding issues aside, I don’t find these excerpts very encouraging, Diane. I don’t see anything that Secretary Duncan or other Reformers would take issue with. Throw a rhetorical bone to teachers by saying the job is hard but emphasize that they need to be held accountable and the godsend of the Common Core is a magical solution. Still searching for a political leader on education to believe in.
LikeLike
I am all for dumping Common Core, but I think Diane’s point is that at least Governor Brown recognizes in a profound way the importance of resources and autonomy for teachers. I have read other remarks by Brown showing evidence he at least partially “gets it.” He might even be aware of the associated cognitive dissonance, but believes this is as far as he can go in the present political climate. Yes, I might be terribly naïve, and the last of the red hot optimists to boot!
LikeLike
Ohio algebra teacher, at least Governor Brown knows that money matters, that equity matters, and he does not promote charters and vouchers as a fix. That puts him head and shoulders above most of the other governors, including Democrats like Cuomo (NY) and Malloy (Ct).
LikeLike
I love Jerry Brown, but I have not read much about his take on the LA iPad fiasco. It does not seem he was all too much into it, yet he is superior compared to almost every other governor except for a handful . . . . .
LikeLike
Money definitely matters and it is good that Brown is paying attention to this BUT…. it seems as if every time a district gets some money these days it is DIRECTED straight to the profiteers of “ed reform”. Even if funding is adjusted, I do hope Brown would see that WHERE the money goes is IMPORTANT. If “ed reformers” continue to hold 100 percent of the power, they will just keep raiding the cookie jar whenever there are cookies. I feel that RTTT has increased funding but not for the benefit of students. Does Brown pay attention to HOW money is spent in title one schools vs schools with students from middle and upper income families?
LikeLike
David and Diane, you both make great points, and I have been impressed with Governor Brown’s resistance to using tests for teacher evaluations. I guess my point is that I find it disheartening that someone who has shown understanding of underlying issues still feels the need to toe the line established by reformist propaganda. In no way do I consider Grown remotely comparable to someone like Governor Cuomo who does nothing to disguise his contempt for teachers.
LikeLike
I almost hate to ask, but is the Local Control Funding Formula plan a good thing? What are the risks or downsides, or does everyone agree that it’s a wonderful thing? When I hear the words “weighted-funding,” my first impulse is to reach for my calculator. (My second impulse is to get distracted by something else.)
LikeLike
While there are pundits on both sides, we really haven’t had it long enough to see what the positives and negatives truly are for most districts. I have read and seen some good things and I have also seen some shaking head shenanigans. My guess is at the end of the day that it is a mixed bag–“meet the new boss, same as the old boss” kinda stuff.
LikeLike
Illinois is one of those states that does almost nothing for schools. They rely on local property taxes which of course means funding depends on your zip code. We have our scandals, misuse of funds, and poor financial management, but I can’t point to any evidence that the state would do better. They are currently trying to steal the pensions of public workers including teachers which they have failed to fund for decades. I don’t think I would trust them more than local communities. There are state rules and regs as well as oversight, but our government has shown themselves to be uniquely unqualified to handle money. The state has created monumental problems; when local communities mismanage their finances they are not going to drag down the state.
LikeLike
Weighted funding is supposed to be more fair, but I have heard concerns that it is a way to channel more money to vouchers (or to charters).
LikeLike
Christine… your comment is important because it really matters who is in control of “the purse”. If getting more money just gives more money to destructive “ed reform policy” it is most important to stop “ed reform” from co-opting the money. This would be first and foremost in the ranking of priorities. I would hope that Brown would acknowledge and act on this first.
LikeLike
wow: “After years of underfunding and even borrowing from our local schools, the state now has significantly increased its financial support for education. Next year schools will receive $65.7 billion, a 39 percent increase in four years.”
So glad. My niece is principal of a k to 8 school in San Francisco, after her success at a K to 6 school. She is exhausted and could use some support, and is getting an AP,. YaY.
You see, I do not merely follow the travesty in LA, but,… Now that thousands of veteran teachers in LA, have been removed, reducing the budget by 45 thousand dollars in salary for each tenured teacher sent out the door, and another 18 thousand in benefits (minimum)– there is plenty of money to hire novices who stay a few years before running out the door when they discover the reality!
What is that reality?
For education administrators, there is NO penalty for perjury in California (no sworn statements to support any and all allegations and ‘documentation’ provided by administration….simply put, a teacher can be deprived of her career with NO sworn testimony, as principals ‘leapfrog’ over the grievance process, and need no evidence to send them out… every last teacher who was ‘charged,’ was dismissed.
When one gets a summons from a police officer , signed by him, its validity lies in his SWORN statement to uphold the law. No such penalty for perjury exists in the schools there, or anywhere in this nation… as I, and many others discovered.
THAT is going to change if teachers get behind the need for it.
What is happening in LA is not over, and If Mr Brown IS who WE THINK he is, then perhaps things will change.
I like Jerry but I love Bernie!
LikeLike
Bernie is THE man. . . . . one of few with real cajones. . . . .
Idiotic New York Magazine referred to him as a “communist”, but he has only referred to himself as a “socialist democrat”, and I am right up there with him.
I wonder how Vermont is doing as it phases in the country’s first state-wide single payer healthcare system . . . . ?
LikeLike
Bernie is one of a kind. There is not one like him.
AND, There is no way he can make the kind of compromises that are required of anyone seeking the presidency. Bernie as president is a pipe dream.
LikeLike
Governor Brown, 1st edition 1975-1983 (he followed his father 1959-1967 and Ronald Regan 1967-1975) oversaw the following changes to CA Education Financing:
Senate Bill 90 (1972) (Passed under Regan)
In 1972, the Legislature established revenue limits for California public schools. These revenue limits placed a ceiling on the amount of tax money each district could receive per pupil. The 1972-73 general purpose spending level became the base amount in determining each district’s annual revenue limit. This was the beginning of the shift from local to state control of school finance.
Serrano v. Priest (1976)
Serrano v. Priest is the 1976 California Supreme Court decision that found the existing system of financing schools unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the state Constitution. The court ruled that property tax rates and per pupil expenditures should be equalized and that, by 1980, the difference in revenue limits per pupil should be less than $100 ( Serrano band ). This difference in revenue limits has subsequently been adjusted for inflation and is currently about $350. In equalizing funding, districts are divided into three types: elementary, high school, and unified. They are then further broken down into small versus large districts to ensure that appropriate funding comparisons are made. Special-purpose or categorical funds are excluded from this calculation.
Assembly Bill 65 (1977)
In response to the Serrano v. Priest decision, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 65. It created an annual inflation adjustment based on a sliding scale in order to equalize revenue limits among districts over time. Higher inflation increases went to districts with low revenue limits, with lower (occasionally no) inflation adjustments for high revenue-limit districts. AB 65 also established the Early Childhood Education Program, predecessor to the School Improvement Program (SIP) and several other categorical programs.
Proposition 13 (1978)
This constitutional amendment approved by California voters in 1978 limits property tax rates to 1% of a property’s assessed value. Increases in assessed value per year are capped at 2% or the percentage growth in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) , whichever is less. According to this law, new taxes, such as a parcel tax, must be approved by two-thirds of local voters.
Assembly Bill 8 (1978)
In response to Proposition 13, the Legislature established a formula for dividing property taxes among cities, counties, and school districts. This shielded schools from some of the measure’s effects. In the process, the state replaced the lost property taxes and effectively took control of school district funding.
Gann Limit (Proposition 4, 1979)
In 1979 voters approved Proposition 4, a constitutional limit on government spending at every level in the state, including school districts. No agency’s expenditures can exceed its Gann limit, which is adjusted annually for changes in population and the lesser of either the national Consumer Price Index (CPI) or California’s per capita personal income. (The index was changed by Proposition 111 in 1990. See below.)
Senate Bill 813 (1983)
Senate Bill (SB) 813 in 1983 provided additional money to school districts through equalization of revenue limits and new categorical programs, more rigorous graduation requirements, longer school day/year, and higher beginning teachers’ salaries. It also established statewide model curriculum standards.
Under successive regimes the following took place:
Lottery Initiative (1984)
In November 1984, voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing the California State Lottery. The provisions guarantee that a minimum of 34% of total lottery receipts be distributed to public schools, colleges, and universities. The money is to supplement, not replace, support for education; it must be used “exclusively for the education of pupils and students and no funds shall be spent for acquisition of real property, construction of facilities, financing of research or any other non-instructional purpose.” Proceeds from the lottery add less than 2% to school district revenues.
Proposition 98 (1988)
This constitutional amendment, approved in November 1988, guarantees a minimum funding level from state and property taxes for K-14 public schools in a complex formula based on state tax revenues. Proposition 98 also requires each school to prepare and publicize an annual School Accountability Report Card (SARC) that covers at least 13 required topics, including test scores, dropout rates, and teacher qualifications. A two-thirds vote of the Legislature and a signature from the governor are required to suspend Proposition 98 for a year.
Proposition 111 (1990)
Included in this constitutional amendment was a change in the inflation index for the Gann limit calculation, effectively raising the limit. Additionally, the minimum funding guarantee for education (Proposition 98) was changed to reflect the growth of California’s overall economy. Proposition 111 accomplished this by shifting the adjustment for inflation from the growth of per capita personal income, which historically has tended to be a lower amount, to the growth in state per capita General Fund revenues plus one-half percent.
Assembly Bill 1200 (1991)
In 1991, Assembly Bill 1200 established a system for school district accounting practices that specifies how districts must track and report their revenues and expenditures. This law requires that districts project their fiscal solvency two years out and provide the state with school-board-approved financial interim reports twice a year. County offices of education are responsible for monitoring and providing some technical assistance to their districts under this law.
For the full text of this law, go to: http://www.fcmat.org/stories/storyReader$18
Class Size Reduction, K-3 (Senate Bill 1777, 1996)
In 1996, the Legislature passed the Class Size Reduction (CSR) Program, which provided incentives for school districts to reduce K-3 classes to a pupil-teacher ratio of no more than 20 to 1. This legislation provided annual incentive funding of $650 for each student in a smaller class and an option of $325 for students in a staggered session in which the pupil-teacher ratio is no more than 20 to 1 for half the day. These incentives were later increased to $800 full day and $400 half day per student in CSR classes plus annual inflation adjustments. A one-time allocation of $25,000 per added classroom was also made available for full-day classes to improve facilities or acquire portable classrooms.
For the full text of this law, go to: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
Class Size Reduction, 9th grade (1998)
Two years after the original K-3 Class Size Reduction (CSR), the California Legislature expanded the existing high school program to concentrate on high school freshmen. To qualify for the $135 per pupil incentive, high schools must offer one or two ninth-grade courses with an average of 20 students per teacher, with a maximum of 22 per participating class. This bill also requires that one of the courses must be in English and the other can be in mathematics, science, or social studies. Programs that are excluded from participating in this program include Special Education classes and Necessary Small Schools.
For the corresponding Education Code to this law, go to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html You will need to select “education code” and search for the keywords “class size reduction.”
Senate Bill 1468 (1997)
Senate Bill 1468 changes the way the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) for school districts is counted. Before 1997, ADA equaled the number of students in school plus those students who missed school but had a permissible excuse such as an illness, a doctor’s appointment, or a death in the family. Instead, SB 1468 requires that schools calculate their ADA by counting only the students who are actually at school each day. In an attempt to ensure that school districts did not lose a large proportion of their revenue, state leaders recalculated the per pupil revenue limit to yield a higher amount per ADA.
For a full text of this law, go to: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
Assembly Bill 1600 (1999)
Assembly Bill 1600 gave charter schools the option to receive funding directly from the state, instead of their local district, in the form of a block grant. This grant combines both general-purpose money and a large proportion of the categorical funds into a single per pupil amount that varies by grade level. Charter schools are also eligible for additional categorical program funding for which the school and individual students qualify.
Since 2000 – Conclusion:
After a decade of disinvestment, the gap between resources available to California schools and the rest of the US has widened substantially. California’s schools spend fewer dollars per student and have substantially more students per school staff than schools in other states. Despite a minimum funding level guaranteed to California schools by Proposition 98, the gap between California’s spending on schools and that of the rest of the US is widening. The Department of Finance projects state budget shortfalls for the near future, which means the state will continue to lack resources needed for its public systems.19 Ensuring California’s students the opportunities that a quality education affords requires a level of state resources that allows for adequate investment in the state’s schools. Absent additional revenue, California schools will likely fall further behind.
Now in 2014—
In January, Governor Jerry Brown introduced a proposal to fix the way we fund schools in California. The plan is called “Local Control Funding Formula” or “LCFF.” It shifts California’s inequitable and irrational way of funding schools to a simpler “need-based” education funding formula for students. The Governor’s plan does the following:
1. Increases funding for all districts with additional resources for low-income and English Language Learners;
2. Removes bureaucratic red tape that bogs down money sent to local school districts;
3. Increases Local Control, giving local school districts more options on how to best use funds.
With more funding targeted at high-need learners, schools districts can spend money on what matters, such as:
Extend the school day and year so that students have more time to learn.
Provide safe, supportive school environments by investing in counselors, targeted instructional and behavioral supports, and drop-out prevention programs.
Prepare all teachers and students for the demands of the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards.
Offer all high school students a wide array of college and career-preparatory options, including a-g coursework and meaningful workplace experiences.
The Local Control Funding Formula will provide school districts with additional dollars to help them educate low-income students, English learners, and students in foster care. To ensure districts use these dollars as intended, the LCFF must include:
Strong Assurances that additional funding will be spent on high-need students;
Public Transparency and consistency around school and district-level revenues and expenditures;
Local Community Involvement in spending decisions; and
Robust Accountability for improving student outcomes by spending dollars effectively.
Politics is great….
LikeLike
Brown is pro charter. Here in Oakland he started and maintains 2 charter schools and has done nothing for our public schools. Jerry Brown has not been a friend to public education in Oakland, CA.
LikeLike
Makes me wonder when I see so much praise for him, if he has a hidden side???
LikeLike
Words to the wary when the ruling political class speaks:
Robust accountability
Public Transparency
Investing in ………
LikeLike