California Policy Forum: Local Control Funding Formula - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

California Policy Forum: Local Control Funding Formula Implementation Updates & Opportunities Tuesday, December 16, 2014 Call in to hear the audio: Phone: 866-740-1260 Access Code: 8245016

Housekeeping & Questions To ¡par'cipate ¡in ¡today’s ¡webinar: ¡ ¡ • Call ¡in ¡to ¡hear ¡the ¡audio: ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Phone: ¡866-­‑740-­‑1260 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Access ¡Code: ¡8245016 ¡ • All ¡par=cipants ¡are ¡muted ¡to ¡eliminate ¡ background ¡noise ¡ • Webinar ¡is ¡being ¡recorded ¡ • Enter ¡ques=ons ¡in ¡the ¡Chat ¡Window ¡on ¡ the ¡leF ¡of ¡your ¡screen ¡– ¡we ¡will ¡collect ¡ ques=ons ¡throughout ¡and ¡answer ¡them ¡ at ¡the ¡end ¡of ¡the ¡webinar ¡

Welcome Follow the conversation on Twitter #LCCF California Association of Nonprofits @CalNonprofits Northern California Grantmakers @NorCalGrant San Diego Grantmakers @SDGrantmakers Sophie ¡Fanelli ¡ ¡ Director ¡of ¡Educa=on ¡ Stuart ¡Founda=on ¡ Southern California Grantmakers @SoCalGrantmakers

Agenda • Legislative Update Jennifer Fearing, Sacramento Advocate, CalNonprofits • Overview of the LCFF and updates on the implementation Jonathan Kaplan, Senior Policy Analyst, California Budget Project • Need for parent engagement Oscar Cruz, President & CEO, Families in Schools • Student Need Index, identifying the students most in need of LCFF dollars Kim Pattillo Brownson, Director of Educational Equity, Advancement Project • Questions

Update from Sacramento Jennifer Fearing CalNonprofits Sacramento Advocate jenniferf@calnonprofits.org

Moving Forward: California’s New Education Funding 1107 9th Street, 1107 9th Street, Formula Suite 310 Suite 310 Sacramento, Sacramento, California 95814 California 95814 (916) 444-0500 (916) 444-0500 www.cbp.org www.cbp.org A PRESENTATION BY cbp@cbp.org cbp@cbp.org JONATHAN KAPLAN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST December 2014

Why Did California Change How It Funds Schools? 2

California’s Old Education Finance System Was Complex, Irrational, and Inequitable  Under the prior system, school funding in California: – Was determined by complicated formulas that dated back to the 1970s. – Included dozens of programs designated for specific purposes (so-called “categorical” programs ). – Did not reflect the cost of educating different student populations. 3

What Does the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Do? 4

The LCFF Fundamentally Restructures California’s Education Finance System  The LCFF: – Eliminates “revenue limits” and nearly all state categorical programs. – Streamlines state K-12 funding and allocates resources based on student needs . – Shifts responsibility for allocation of K-12 funding from the state to school districts . 5

The LCFF Makes State Education Spending More Transparent and Rational  Under the LCFF, the state provides school districts with: – Uniform base grants per student for four grade spans. – A supplemental grant per student, equal to 20 percent of the base grant, for the unduplicated number of English learners, foster youth, and economically disadvantaged students in each school district. – A concentration grant per student, equal to 50 percent of the base grant, for the unduplicated number of English learners, foster youth, and economically disadvantaged students above 55 percent of school district enrollment. 6

LCFF Implementation Began in 2013-14, but Reaching Funding Targets Will Take Several Years  The LCFF creates a target funding level for each school district .  Full implementation of the LCFF – that is, all school districts meeting their funding targets – depends on the state increasing spending for schools .  The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently estimated that all school districts will not reach their funding targets until at least 2020-21 . 7

In 2014-15, School Districts Will Receive Increases in LCFF Funding Equal to 29 Percent of the Gap Between Their 2013-14 Funding and Their Target LCFF Funding Levels Gap between 2013-14 funding and target LCFF Funding Per Student funding level 29% of gap 2013 -14 Funding Additional 2014-15 Funding Target LCFF Funding Level 8

School Districts Farther From Their LCFF Funding Targets Receive Larger Annual Increases in Dollars Per Student Than Those Who Are Closer to Their Targets $14,000 $12,000 $12,000 $11,000 Gap between 2013-14 Gap between 2013-14 funding and target $10,000 funding and target funding level funding level LCFF Funding Per Student 29% $870 of gap $8,000 29% $1,740 of gap $6,000 $4,000 $8,000 $6,000 $2,000 $0 District A Funding District A District A Target District B Funding District B District B Target 2013-14 Funding Additional 2014-15 Funding Target Funding at Full Implementation 9

The LCFF Requires Local Accountability Plans ■ The LCFF provides school districts with greater authority over the use of funds, but requires each district to adopt a “Local Control and Accountability Plan” (LCAP) . ■ LCAPs must set district goals in each of eight state priorities, which include implementation of Common Core State Standards, student achievement, parental involvement, and school climate, among others. ■ LCAPs must specify actions to meet district goals. ■ Specific actions in a school district’s LCAP must be aligned with the district’s adopted budget, and expenditures must be sufficient to implement actions included in the LCAP. 10

The LCFF Requires Local Accountability Plans (continued) ■ Each school board must: – “Increase or improve services” for disadvantaged pupils in proportion to the increase in funds attributable to these students. – Have adopted an LCAP by July 1, 2014 , which will be effective for three years. – Update its LCAP annually prior to adoption of its budget. – Solicit input from various stakeholders , including parents, students, and school employees. – Submit its LCAP for approval to the County Office of Education. 11

The LCFF Requires Evaluation Rubrics ■ The LCFF requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt evaluation rubrics by October 1, 2015. ■ These evaluation rubrics will be used to assess school district and individual schoolsite performance . ■ As the SBE develops evaluation rubrics, it must adopt performance standards for each of the eight state priorities described in a district’s LCAP. 12

Stakeholder Engagement Is Key to Accountability  School districts must provide opportunities for consultation and comment when developing and updating their LCAPs.  School districts must form parent advisory committees to provide input on LCAPs. These committees must include parents and/or legal guardians of English learners, foster youth, and economically disadvantaged students.  School district superintendents must respond in writing to comments made by parent advisory committees. 13

The LCFF Is an Important Step Toward Equity, Though Adequate School Funding Remains a Concern  California’s school spending per student has substantially lagged the rest of the US for at least the past 20 years.  California would have needed to spend an additional $13.4 billion in 2013-14 to reach the same level of spending per student as the rest of the US. 14

Conclusion  The LCFF fundamentally restructures how California funds schools and makes state education spending more transparent and rational.  The LCFF aligns education funding with student needs.  Stakeholder engagement is key to ensuring that school districts increase or improve services for English learners, foster youth, and economically disadvantaged students.  The LCFF addresses equity issues, but does not in itself provide adequate school funding . 15

For More Information Jonathan Kaplan Senior Policy Analyst jkaplan@cbp.org 916-444-0500 www.cbp.org Blog: www.CaliforniaBudgetBites.org Twitter: @CABudgetProject Facebook.com/CAbudget 16

Families In Schools www.familiesinschools.org

Why Does it Matter? • “ When schools use effective family engagement practices, students are 10 times more likely to improve their math performance and 4 times more likely to improve their reading performance. ” (Byrk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton , 2012). • “ When parents participated in academic enrichment activities with their children outside of school for an average of less than 12 weeks, children demonstrated an equivalent of 4- to 5-months improvement in reading or math performance . ” Summarized from Nye, C., Turner, H. M.,& Schwartz, J. B. (2006).

Why Does it Matter? Parent ¡Involvement ¡ Parent ¡Engagement ¡ Describes ¡how ¡parents ¡par4cipate ¡ Describes ¡the ¡work ¡of ¡schools ¡ at ¡home ¡and ¡at ¡school ¡in ¡ and ¡organiza4ons ¡as ¡they ¡ their ¡child ’ s ¡educa4on ¡ engage ¡parents ¡to ¡become ¡ involved ¡in ¡their ¡child ’ s ¡ educa4on ¡ Efforts ¡of ¡ Efforts ¡of ¡ Parents ¡ District ¡ ¡