Re “California: Where Receiving Less Is More”
Goose and Gander
Gov. Brown plans to shift significant amounts of state education funding from the more successful, more prosperous school districts to districts with large numbers of low-income students and English learners. His hope is that the districts with high-needs students eventually will do better under his newly weighted formula. But if he believes that spending more money on these students will lead to better educational outcomes, what about those students in districts that will have some of their funding siphoned off?
All Districts Are Not As Equal
Not all educationally successful districts are equally affluent. Losing $5M in funding in a year is quite a significant sum for a district the size of our CCUSD. Does our shifty governor expect local property owners to step in and make up the increasing annual deficits caused by his new shifting of revenues? Does he expect property owners to pass tax and bond measures to make up these growing differences?
Counting on Us
This is an important but latent part of Gov. Brown’s lopsided shift in state funding. He is counting on more affluent communities being shorted, hoping they will be willing to tax themselves more, locally, when it comes to the education of their children.
Rising Expectations
For the last four years, Measure EE, the $96 local parcel tax, has brought in about $1.12M annually. At that rate, it would mean that by 2020, we will have to hike local property taxes to over $450 to make up for the governor’s plan when it would add up to $5.0M annually.
Shifting Reality
Gov. Brown’s repeated shifty selling point is that “every district will get more.” What he does not say is that for the majority of districts, it’s not really going to be as much, had the funds not been shifted.
If Gov. Brown wants to equalize the educational opportunities of all California students, he should find the funds elsewhere and not take from other students.
Do You Hear What I Hear?
He should not rob Peter to pay for Paolo’s education. He should definitely not seize funds from school districts just because they have a proven record of success, like the CCUSD. He should find the monies elsewhere. Did I hear a train whistle? Is that his Bullet Train being pushed down the political track?
FLEXIBILITY
Let’s not fool ourselves. Adding flexibility does not put more money into our District’s coffers. The state Dept of Finance’s spreadsheet clearly shows that by implementing the governor’s shifting plan, it will cost our children in the long run.
A Promise Given…
The governor is dangling his promise of enhanced local control and flexibility in front of district educators like a carrot. It is nothing more than a bribe to help him convince their local school communities to accept what they otherwise would not want to see happen: Having some of their funding siphoned off by the state and shared elsewhere.
District administrators must remember that a promise given can be just as easily taken back, as it was given.
Local Decisions
If this shifting of funds is implemented, our community will need to have serious discussions about whether the $5M funding loss, in our small district would be too high a price for us to pay for gaining flexibility in budgeting revenues. Also, whether we, as a community, are willing to take on the governor's imposed burden, to pay the higher parcel taxes needed to minimize its local impact, to fill in those annual multi-million dollar gaps caused by Gov. Brown's shifting of funds away from our schools.
Mr. Laase may be contacted at GMLaase@aol.com
