Some members of the Los Angeles school board are proposing a stealth voucher plan. Unsurprisingly, the United Teachers of Los Angeles opposes the plan.
DeVos-funded consultant pushes internal voucher scheme in LAUSD
This fall UTLA members will be building a vision for how to use the historic infusion of funding to transform education for our students. The privatizers have their own game plan to drive more public dollars to charter operators, and it involves an internal voucher-like scheme connected to Betsy DeVos. Under Trump, Devos’s office funded a grant for an outside consultant to push a competition-based system called Student-Centered Funding in LAUSD.
Basically, funding would move with each student instead of being allocated centrally for staff and programs. It sounds like a good idea when you first hear about it — but in cities like Chicago and Denver, these formulas have led to racially disparate negative consequences, including the loss of libraries and the arts, school closures, and the undermining of school stability, particularly in Black and Brown communities.
The funding scheme was sold in Chicago as a way to achieve greater equity for Black and Brown students, but it’s done the opposite.
Former student Styles Avant-Pinkston lived through a similar scheme — called student-based budgeting in Chicago — that led to under-resourced schools being starved of support and then often shut down. Avant-Pinkston was forced to travel across town to attend a school outside of his neighborhood.
“I shouldn’t have to take a 50-minute bus ride — I should just be able to walk to a good school,” Avant-Pinkston says. “These funding schemes are an attack on kids of color and minority communities. You never hear about schools in wealthy neighborhoods shutting down — they invest in those schools. Schools can be turned around if they see value in doing that — some people just don’t see the value in communities of color. The message is clear: Student-based funding schemes shut down neighborhood schools.”
The LAUSD School Board has yet to vote on the internal voucher scheme, but a decision could come as early as this month. With a highly paid consultant leading the way, the district has fast-tracked the plan, and families and educators have been left out of the discussions and development. Even some Board members have been given little information about this monumental shift in funding.
This internal voucher scheme has destabilized community schools wherever it’s been tried and has not proven to improve student outcomes. If implemented the negative effects would be:
Marketing Over Student Needs: Students would be turned into “backpacks full of cash” and schools forced to compete for market share. With every year a hustle to protect enrollment, school principals would have to prioritize marketing over student needs.
Downward Spiral: Schools that are already struggling with inadequate resources and that serve under-resourced communities would be hit hardest. Every time a student leaves, the school would have even fewer resources to support the students who remain, triggering cuts to staff and essential programs and pushing out other families.
School Closures: Drops in enrollment lead to the closure of neighborhood schools and the destabilization of communities, particularly in Black and Brown neighborhoods. LAUSD has already been targeting small schools like Trinity Elementary in South LA for permanent closure, citing dropping enrollment figures. Closed schools are then handed over to a chapter operator. That trend will accelerate under this internal voucher scheme
Veteran Educators Pushed Aside: The scheme creates incentives to hire lower-salary educators and other staff. That’s what happened in Chicago, where principals are prioritizing hiring less expensive inexperienced teachers over the overwhelmingly Black veteran teaching staff.
Privatization on steroids: LAUSD has told the Department of Education that they plan to allow dollars to follow students to independent charter operators, a further threat to neighborhood schools and the stability of the public school system. The operational funding shift also lays the groundwork for money to eventually follow students to private or religious schools. This is why market reformers from both political parties — from Arne Duncan and Betsy DeVos to ALEC — support the formula: It is an important step down the road to achieving their longtime goal of dismantling our nation’s historic commitment to public education and freeing those dollars for the private sector.

“This is why market reformers from both political parties — from Arne Duncan and Betsy DeVos to ALEC — support the formula:”
It’s amazing how fast this merger is happening and it’s always, always in the voucher direction.
It’s inevitable that liberal ed reformers go to universal vouchers. They’re headed there at breakneck speed because their plans don’t make any sense without it. They should just capitulate to DeVos now- they were always going to end up exactly where she is.
Once they accepted changing the definition of “public education” to the much narrower “publicly funded” they were on the path to vouchers. They had to end up there, and they have. In five years they’ll all be cheerleading “backpacks full of cash”.
LikeLike
This sounds like a plan to create maximum disruption at the expense of Black and brown students. Poor, minority students do not do well in a chaotic atmosphere. They need resources, smaller classes and stability. Since it was such a terrible idea for Chicago, why would anyone think it would be successful in California?
“You never hear about schools in wealthy neighborhoods shutting down — they invest in those schools. ”
Students whose parents have some clout would push back against this anti-student, Jim Crow voucher. Why would any state knowingly replicate failure? What is California paying Tony Thurmond for? How about Linda Darling Hammond who is supposed to be an expert in equity? It is clear that this scheme is about destabilizing community public schools. What do the great minds of California think about it?
LikeLike
So why is this not happening in my rural in transition to suburban county? Because there would be a cry so loud that the governor would hear it. Just a few people where his votes originate can affect the body politic. Why will outrage in the places where this is happening not reach the leadership? I think we all know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
key knowledge
LikeLike
This system was instituted by Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein at NYC schools in 2007. It is called “Fair student funding” and has contributed to an incentive for principals to overcrowd their classrooms and schools. Unfortunately, the de Blasio administration has continued the system and wants to allocate nearly all our additional funding from the state meant to provide smaller classes and greater equity to fully fund tht inherently flawed formula.
LikeLike
Fair student funding was responsible for the de Blasio administration’s pouring of resources into the Renewal School program?
All this time public school parents have been lobbying for fair student funding for their schools when they should have been demanding an end to fair student funding?
Leonie, from my very limited vision, principals seem to be overcrowding their schools because if a school is popular, they want to accommodate as many students as possible. Not for the money. The reason for large class sizes is because the rooms are all being used.
When there have been efforts to rezone to reduce class size at overcrowded schools, parents aren’t celebrating the lower class sizes, they are complaining that their kid isn’t allowed to attend the zoned school they moved to the neighborhood to attend even though it was crowded.
More recently, with lottery admission to middle schools, I have seen that some parents still want an overcrowded school that has a reputation for attracting more academic students, and other parents would rather have a less popular middle school with smaller class sizes. Are you finding something different? Of course in a perfect world, the most popular schools would also have small class sizes, but that just means that fewer students are able to attend them.
But does fair student funding really have anything to do with the reason there are overcrowded zoned elementary schools that are trying to accommodate as many students from the zone as possible?
Reducing class size and fair student funding seems like two different issues. How, other than rezoning, do you reduce class sizes at overcrowded public schools with that money?
LikeLike
The bastards never rest do they?
LikeLike
The important thing is to get loud and stay loud. We need to make the news. Stealth is the enemy.
LOUD!
Diane, on behalf of my colleagues and students, thank you for this post. A voucher scheme in the second largest district in the country would be a knife in everyone’s back. There will be a voucher initiative on the next California ballot, but the first order of business must be defeating the backpacks full of cash scheme the CCSA is foisting on LAUSD.
LikeLike
Can you help me understand how this benefits charters? Since their funding flows directly from the state and wouldn’t be impacted by this formula? What am I missing? I don’t see any advocacy from them or their usual mouthpieces ….
LikeLike
It disrupts the funding formulas for schools, making it impossible to cap class sizes and create stability in general. It will dilute the impact of Title I funds in addressing the needs of students by making funds portable and taking money away from schools by instead creating a $ figure to follow each student to any school. There would be very little oversight over principals and how they use those funds with no required parent or community input. Schools have fixed costs, and instability in funding those fixed costs will wreak havoc.
LikeLike
It benefits charters because it destabilizes the public schools, their competitors. Their goal is to destroy public education, not just to make some more money. They want the whole pie. They are advocating for it, but behind closed doors. They know this scheme would die if people knew about it.
LikeLike
The funding doesn’t flow directly from the state to the school.
LikeLike
And “flow” is not the right word to describe funding nowadays. More like ‘trickle’ or ‘drip’.
LikeLike
Thanks for the explanation! BTW when I said “they” get money directly from the state I meant the charters, not public schools… I’m understanding better…. But isn’t it the case that the district has to fund students based on their LCFF formulas? It’s actually been affluent schools in the valley that have benefitted from the centralized budgeting, “shorting” resources “earned” by concentration funding in south LA, central LA and southeast to the tune of millions per site? fixed costs are one thing, but that is accounted for with the base Prop 98 floor. Don’t we want the $ generated by the concentration funding to go to the students targeted rather than distributed where they’re not needed? I’m sorry for being dense…i guess I don’t understand the proposal fully….
LikeLike
You’re not being dense. You’re being deceptive. You’re right only that schools west of the 405 have developed ways to hoard some funding. The solution to that is not to increase schools’ ability to hoard funding. With the voucher scheme, students who need funding the most will get further shorted. Money will go from where it’s needed to where it’s trendy. The district should not outsource funding to independent charters. It’s shooting public school students and teachers in the foot.
LikeLike
Results of googling “student-centered funding in lausd”: 6 pieces from the district website, all presenting SCF as a very positive development– and a done deal, on a schedule for implementation in the ’22-’23 school year. Going on now: board/ stakeholder discussions developing details on which student needs will be part of the revised funding formula, and how they will be weighted. Other than those google hits, 2 BOE pieces summarizing scheduled discussions. No press coverage whatsoever. No info on how/ when this got decided.
The most informative bit I got was a hypothetical example of a $7.5million school budget under SCF. Currently (as I understand it – not detailed there), staff & programs are purchased centrally and allocated according to the SENI formula [“Student Equity Needs Index], which funnels more funding to schools with more high-needs students. Under the new arrgt, most of the budget is divided equally between centrally-provided and school-purchased staff/programs, with latter funding provided direct to school according to the SCF formula [weighted for individual needs of that school’s population]. The remainder [$500k in the hypothetical] is shown as SENI-based allocation.
All these district-website presentations look incredibly reasonable, & a number of concerns are addressed under FAQ, e.g., community schools and “fiscally independent” charters & certain specialized schools are excluded from SCF budgeting. FAQs also assure the public that SpEd and ESL programs won’t be affected– which sounds like an out&out lie (or at least misleading), when you’ve got virtually half the budget being trotted around willy-nilly in “student backpacks”!
LikeLike
I have been extremely concerned watching school board meetings on KCLS the last couple months. Our public education supporting stalwarts on the board, Scott Schmerelson and Jackie Goldberg, have been praising charter-funded district leadership (and standardized testing) too much. I worry there has been some slick salesmanship done by Austin Beutner. Scott and Jackie need to be voices of opposition to the voucher plan — on the board. Like I said, we need to get loud about stopping the voucher scheme, and the responsibility for that rests with Scott and Jackie as much as with UTLA. It’s not a done deal if we fight, and when we fight, we win.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The SENI formula on its way out apparently has its critics — just reading between the lines of press articles covering a recent $700million locally-funded covid boost to SENI pot. The gist of several stakeholder interviews: what good is Robin Hood reallocation when your district’s schools consist of a tiny handful of well-off schools, & the vast majority divided between “high needs” and “moderate needs” [one said the latter would be considered high-needs in most national contexts]. In the context of a state which ranks in the bottom 10 on per-pupil spending, this sounds like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
A comment I found kind of humorous: so if we improve graduation rates and test scores, we get less money?
LikeLike
LikeLike