Michel Curi / Flickr

Michel Curi / Flickr

picture of Jeff Camp

Jeff Army camp

In 2013, most California education-watchers wait two policy debates about school finance. Two is not enough; there will need to be three.

Weighted student funding
The first debate will probably be about how to inject a level of principle into the capricious mode that country funds are apportioned to school districts. The arcane term in this fence is "weighted pupil funding," which proposes to classify dollars to districts on the basis of the needs of the students in omnipresence rather than on the footing of program allocations and decades-old political determinations. This worthy idea is zippo new; it was a centerpiece of the 2008 recommendations of the Education Excellence Committee. But it is politically challenging, particularly while constructive resources per student in this state remain substantially below national norms. Any change of this kind will create winners and losers. Californians are non known for Vulcan dispassion.

Easier parcel taxes
The second debate will probably be about whether to let local school districts an easier way to raise local parcel taxes in support of local schools, or possibly in support of local students. (The difference may seem subtle, but it means everything if your kids nourish a charter school or if you desire to enable partnerships that extend beyond traditional schools.) Prop. thirteen closed the door on local use of property taxes based on assessed holding value, simply it left the door cracked open for other approaches. With a two-thirds vote, districts can levy local parcel taxes, which are based on the existence of a parcel rather than on its value. (A belatedly-2012 courtroom ruling in Borikas five. Alameda Unified Schoolhouse District limits districts' flexibility in creating parcel taxes.) Some of California's wealthiest communities have been able to sustain strong participation in local public schools through successful local parcel taxation campaigns that enable them to offer school programs capable of competing with private schools.

A lower passage threshold for package taxes would significantly expand the number of districts able to muster the political support to pass them. Sacramento rumblings suggest that the debate will focus on whether to drib the passage threshold to 55%, mirroring the facilities bond threshold set by Prop. 39.

The combination of these two concepts (weighted student funding and a lower parcel revenue enhancement passage threshold) is politically appealing. Districts like Los Angeles accept been "winners" at lobbying for country-funded programs under the status quo, and might resist a weighted formula alone. But a lower laissez passer rate for parcel taxes as function of the deal could alter everything. It would neatly deflect the opposition of higher-wealth districts by giving them a way to solve their own funding problems locally. It would give districts in heart-wealth districts a new shot at meeting their funding needs if they can build trust with their local communities. Nonprofit community organizations would have a new reason to fund community discussions. District leaders and union leaders would accept a powerful new reason to work through their differences.

This kind of high-engagement local dialogue has been substantially absent from California education for 30 years. Earnest, detailed local conversations about local innovation powered by local funding commitments could create new conditions for innovation in California education.

But in that location'southward a problem. On its own, this program stinks.

A lower passage threshold for local parcel taxes doesn't assistance if your local taxpayers take no wealth to revenue enhancement. This is a fatal flaw in the proposal to only lower the parcel tax passage threshold to 55 percent. If the program does not address the needs of students in poor communities, it'southward non equitable policy. Sooner or later, courts would throw it out.

Tandem_Bike

The tandem bicycle: a metaphor for the future of education funding in California.

The tandem bicycle
Which brings us to the 3rd option: a system that matches local funding with land funding.

Hither'due south how it could work. The passage threshold for local taxation in back up of schools would be lowered to 55%, matching the level set under Prop. 39 for school facilities bonds. In communities with a strong taxation base per pupil in residence, that would be the end of it – the money raised locally would stay local, menstruation. In districts with a weaker tax base per student, even so, the state would have an obligation to lucifer the local taxes raised. The indicate of this match would be to equalize local funding ability, enabling all communities to take an agile role in the support of their schools.

Examples tin aid analyze the concept. The revenue enhancement base of operations per student in Fresno is much smaller than that in San Francisco. San Francisco enjoys a powerful local revenue enhancement base, with high local wealth and relatively few students per taxpayer. Under the tandem bicycle plan, San Francisco would gain the capacity to pass local revenue enhancement measures in support of education at a lower threshold, but it would receive no matching funds. Fresno, by contrast, has a relatively small tax base per student. Therefore, it would receive significant state matching funds. The point is to ensure that local funding capacity everywhere ends up equivalent to at least the country median. In the metaphor of the tandem cycle, the local customs would steer, and the state would help pedal.

Some people will hate this thought, of course. Prove me a policy involving money, and I'll evidence you a policy that someone thinks comes straight from the pit of hell. But most people trust their local representatives and leaders more than they trust policymakers in distant Sacramento. And people are certainly more comfy with paying taxes if they know the taxes will benefit their own customs.

Some will object, rightly, that parcel taxes are a clumsy vehicle. Wouldn't it be ameliorate, and more simply, to base of operations holding taxes on property value rather than on property parcels? Sure – blame the voters of 1978 for foreclosing on that option. Mayhap a bold legislative leader, thinking through the 55 percent parcel tax idea, will choose to test the voltage level of the tertiary rail, instead.

I'1000 often asked where the money to run across the state's "tandem bike" matching fund obligations would come up from. Hither'due south one possibility: Matching obligations would simply come off the height of the country's general fund, as a payment delivery on par with bond debt. Then education funds would be allocated to students and their schools and districts co-ordinate to a weighted student formula. The 2008 written report of the Instruction Excellence Commission includes an analysis of how a variable matching fund would piece of work. Boosted word can exist constitute here.

There are many advantages to re-engaging communities in the critical task of funding local educational activity. But local funding ability varies profoundly. Country and local funding will work best in tandem.

•••

Jeff Camp is the primary author of Ed100.org, a primer on education reform options in California. He co-chairs the Instruction Circle of Full Circle Fund, an organization that coordinates minor teams of volunteers working in support of not bad nonprofit organizations that demand a piffling help to get to the next level, whatever that may be. A visual summary of Ed100 can exist found at http://fleck.ly/edprezi .

To go more reports like this one, click here to sign upwards for EdSource's no-price daily e-mail on latest developments in education.