Real improvement may require changing how we fund schools

You see things; and you say 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' — George Bernard Shaw

California's outdated and convoluted system of funding schools is inadequate for meeting the needs of students in most classrooms today. To make real and lasting improvements in public schools, we must rise to the challenge of changing school funding, asserts CTA's Educational Change Workgroup.

According to a new study, only 23 percent of the state's high school seniors enroll in a four-year university — lower than any other state except Mississippi. The reason is a shortage of high school counselors, adequately trained teachers and college-prep classes, which is mostly due to one of the lowest levels of educational spending in the country. California presently ranks 43rd in the nation in per-pupil spending, even though it ranks 11th in per capita income.

At the heart of the problem is a failure to invest in education, according to a study conducted by the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at UCLA and the UC All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity.

California school finance is an arcane system of revenue limits based on how much funding schools received in the 1970s rather than on present-day needs. The biggest impact of inadequate spending has been on poor and minority students.

Schools are just as segregated today as they were before segregation was banned, says Jonathan Kozol, author of The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. Inner-city schools with African American and Latino children are found to have more crowded and run-down classrooms, fewer electives such as art and music, fewer AP and honors classes, and less experienced teachers than schools in the suburbs where the student bodies are predominantly white.

While California's expectations for student achievement — grade-level standards for subject matter — are among the highest in the country, its per-pupil funding is still $1,000 below the national average. The disconnect between state standards and funding has created what the CTA Educational Change Workgroup calls a "dysfunctional accountability system," which must be fixed.

It's time to change the system radically to ensure fairness and help students meet the state's high standards, the workgroup charges. To accomplish this, school funding should be based "on the twin principles of adequacy and equity."

In an adequacy model, school funding is decided by looking at a state's academic standards and asking: What would it cost to reach those standards? Then the state would guarantee an adequate level of funding for all pupils to meet academic standards.

The equity component reflects the premise: The same is not equal. Equity funding would be based on the needs of the students, not solely on the wealth of the district. This is because some students — English language learners, children with special needs and children who live in poverty — cost more than others to educate.

"I think we should try to tackle both issues at once," says workgroup chair Terri Jackson, who teaches in the Contra Costa Unified School District, a low-income district that was taken over by the state because of its huge deficit. "The goal of adequacy funding is not just to get California to the national average in spending, but to get California to the top rankings in funding. I'm excited at the notion of equity, because some children definitely need more resources."

Equity funding would correct the unfairness that results from some affluent school districts being able to raise large amounts of money for art, music and "the extras" from parent groups and foundations.

"We want to make sure that we don't have two types of schools based on parent income — one with enrichment, art and music and the other without," says Jackson, the immediate past president of United Teachers of Richmond.

"Teachers — me included — are working in schools where low-income students are taking extra math and extra language arts. These students are being turned off to school, and find nothing to look forward to in school. They don't have electives. It's all about academics and catching up. There is nothing fun for these kids."

"I think it's time for us to be looking at what is fair to every student in the state of California — and that means looking at how much money it costs to properly educate students," says CTA Board member Larry Carlin, the liaison to the workgroup and a member of the Live Oak Teachers Association in Sutter County.

Suburban districts offer students programs and classes that often can't be found in rural and inner-city schools. The reason is that suburban areas are able to pass parcel taxes and bond measures, says Carlin, a rural middle school teacher.

"In many urban areas you can't afford nice computer labs and advanced courses in math, science and technology because they don't have the tax base that suburban areas do. In rural areas, schools are too spread out and have too few students to offer these things."

The workgroup recommends that CTA work with members of the Education Coalition to develop a foundation for an adequacy campaign in California, which may include legislative or perhaps legal action to obtain additional permanent funding for public schools.

Legal action to remedy school funding inadequacies and inequities has been attempted in the past with limited, if any, success:

• The Serrano v. Priest decision, which in 1968 ordered that schools be funded equally throughout the state, had good intentions, but unintended consequences. Under the ruling, impoverished school districts did not receive more money. Rather than raising the level of schools in poor communities to the level of schools in affluent communities, schools were "equalized down." The decision imposed a ceiling — revenue limits — on schools, limiting spending to a few thousand dollars per student.

• Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Unified School District was brought by the parents of African American students who alleged that poor and minority students were denied "equal protection of the law" under the California Constitution because of disparities in school resources, instructional staff and facilities. The inequities included overcrowding, unequal access to libraries, teaching staff with less experience and more substitute teachers than were found in wealthier schools. The court did not rule on the merits of the case because the parties entered into a "consent decree," which was approved by the court in 1992. The decree, which required LAUSD to move toward equal per-pupil expenditures on basic classroom resources, including teacher salaries, was recently dissolved. Parents who filed the original suit are considering appealing the judge's ruling.

• In Williams v. California, plaintiffs accused the state of denying children from impoverished families adequate textbooks, trained teachers and safe classrooms. A settlement reached between Gov. Schwarzenegger's administration and the American Civil Liberties Union requires the state to devote as much as $1 billion over a period of several years for 2,400 low-performing schools to repair deteriorating facilities and $50 million to assess such needs. It would also provide nearly $139 million for textbooks. Most education experts agree it was a step in the right direction, but far from enough money to solve the chronic underfunding of schools.

Many other states, including Massachusetts, Maryland, Kentucky and New York, are looking at adequacy models and asking the question: How much does it take provide a student with an adequate education?

According to Education Week, New York conducted an adequacy study in 2004 that asked: What is the cost of providing all New York public school students a full opportunity to meet the Regents Learning Standards? The study found that 517 of 680 districts in the state, which is ranked third in the nation in per-pupil funding, were not spending at adequate levels, and an additional $7.2 billion in state spending would be needed to bring all districts up to "adequate" spending levels.

The debate over adequate funding for students in New York City — the nation's largest school system — is still raging. The state's highest court ordered that billions of additional dollars be provided to New York City schools, but it hasn't happened. The governor tried to appeal the ruling on the grounds that an eighth-grade education was "adequate" for the city's children, but was not successful.

"For whose children is an eighth-grade education adequate?" asks Robin Rapaport, president of New York NEA. "In situations like these, we may have the wallet, but not always the will."

In California, the state Legislature established a commission in 2002 to consider an adequacy formula for school funding. Seven members were appointed by then Gov. Gray Davis and approved by the Senate. However, Gov. Schwarzenegger rescinded Davis' appointments when he took office and has not replaced them.

Education analyst Michael Kirst and political columnist Peter Schrag believe he is reluctant to put a price tag on what constitutes "adequate" school funding because he will then be expected to provide schools with that amount of money.

Instead, Schwarzenegger has put together the Governor's Advisory Commission on Education Excellence. At a recent EdSource conference in Fremont, commission chair Ted Mitchell would not reveal any of the commission's forthcoming recommendations regarding school funding.

It was announced in March that four private foundations are spending $2.6 million to search for ways to restore California public education to national excellence. The request for such a study was made by a bipartisan group of state leaders. Adequacy funding will be included as part of the study, with researchers asking the question: How much more is needed to allow students to meet the goals set for them by the state? The study, funded by the Gates, Hewlett, Irvine and Stuart foundations, will be led by Stanford University economist Susanna Loeb.

CTA is also working with the Education Coalition and business groups to determine what constitutes adequate and equitable funding for education.

"California's students are never going to get the education they deserve until we give them the resources they need to learn," says CTA President Barbara E. Kerr. "CTA members believe that all of our students should have the opportunity for a high-quality education. In order to achieve that goal, we need to look at funding that is adequate and distributed in a way that makes sense."