Summary: June 11, 2002

Day 7 Topic: Facilities and Finance

Moderators Helie and Ford introduced today's topic and posed several questions to elicit participants' opinions about Facilities and Finance. Today's panelists are Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher; Tom Duffy, Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes; Ken Hall, Chairman, School Services of California, Inc.; Patrick Lenz, Executive Vice Chancellor, California Community Colleges; Assemblywoman Carol Liu; William Pickens, President and CEO, Foundation for Educational Achievement; Assemblyman George Runner; and Donald Zimring, Deputy Superintendent, Las Virgenes Unified School District.

: Postings on today's topic that appeared on the Web site by 8:00 PM Pacific time are included in this summary.

1. Do you find the draft Plan an improvement over the current funding model? If funding on the basis of a quality education will cost significantly more, what would be the best way to pay for it?

   • The plan represents a fundamental change in the approach to resources for public education. Rather than focusing on providing equal shares (equity model), it focuses on what is necessary for kids to succeed (adequacy model). One suggestion proposed that our model include both equity and adequacy as guiding principles.
   • The idea of the adequacy model is to identify the components necessary for a quality education (e.g., student/teacher ratio, number of computers). We need to decide where we want kids to be when they graduate, what it takes to get them there, and then provide the resources in a easily used/understood package. What does it really cost to educate a child? Everything else should stem from that cost.
   • The proposal to create and adopt a model founded on the needs and costs of "adequate" educational services at various grade levels will be challenging and complex. Enacting such a model will require extraordinary political will. Regardless of these concerns, one reason for creating a model based on the economics of education is to provide political motivation to base educational finance on actual costs.
   • "Adequacy" seems subjective and will depend on the local school board and administration to make cost-effective choices. The Plan needs to preempt mismanagement of funds and provide guidance for repairing the damage if this occurs.
   • Schools need to have good accounting practices by knowledgeable professionals who are both supported and trained by the state and closely monitored, as well.
   • Changing to the "adequacy model" sounds appealing, until one realizes that we have no idea what is "adequate" or what it will cost. Furthermore, it invites waste. Concerns were voiced about budget, state bureaucracy, loss of local control, and ready-made excuses at the local level.
   • Concern was raised about money being spent on administration rather than on fully credentialed teachers and factors more directly related to students (e.g., books, materials, environment, art supplies, and music). A recommendation was made for the Plan to promote R&D regarding cost-effective school budgeting - where to spend money to get the best results.
   • The larger issue is how to pay for education once we know how much a quality education costs. Possible recommendations included a split-roll property tax, an assessment for all working persons (not just landowners), an "adopt a school district" program, the 55% vote for parcel taxes, and local decisions on county-wide increases in sales tax.
   • A model that looks at "outcomes" (student-demonstrated, measurable skill and abilities rather than attendance) might prompt schools to be responsible for the value they add to the student's advancement.
   • Any funding mechanism has to be based on concepts of adequacy, predictability, and stability. Schools need more discretion over funding. They need a base that is adequate to provide quality education services and they need to augment funds with local sources.
   • We need to be mindful of the per-pupil amount that California gets in comparison to other states and respective performance levels. Some states manage to do more with less, and we should determine how they do it and emulate their efficiency.
   • The state should not mandate conditions and programs it does not intend to pay for that impact private non- and for-profit preschools and childcare.
   • The present procurement system must change before we can fundamentally change the way we spend money in education. We need to think outside the box and be open to radical change. Don't think any idea is too silly to be raised here.

2. Raising money at district level: Should the rules be changed for local communities that want to spend more on schools? Because of differences in wealth, some communities can raise money more easily than others. Should the state play a role here? If the state were to contribute so that all local communities could generate similar revenue from similar tax efforts, would it affect your opinion about school districts' raising money locally?

   • The Plan envisions a "wealth equalization" commitment from the state: taxpayers would help to even out money for schools in wealthy and poor districts. Then if two communities decided to tax themselves at the same level, the money returned would be the same. The potential high cost of wealth equalization would limit the possibilities of the state regarding local option taxes.
   • Participants discussed the potential effects of allowing local districts to raise funds for public school education. Shifting additional costs for improved public education to the local districts will perpetuate the practice of pushing unfunded mandates to the local districts.
   • To the extent that we rely on "local revenue streams", we will deny educational equity to the poorest areas. The base must be exemplary, it must be funded by the state, and it must be paid for with state taxes
   • Making school funding dependent on the state only will continue to force education decisions to the state level. Local agencies must be able to provide add-ons to the core level that they believe are appropriate for educating students at the local level.
   • If a wealthier district raises more money for its local programs, then the state could provide a matching amount for poorer districts. One participant felt this would eliminate incentives for the poorer district to raise its own money.
   • We must find a local solution with a state augmentation to those localities that can't fund a basic minimum amount per student. However, many districts could fund a decent education program for all students if it wasn't for the Special Education unfunded mandate.
   • True local revenue consists of parcel taxes, local education foundations grants and to some degree, local facility spending.
   • We need to take advantage of the fact that money is easier to raise at the local level by allowing more local fundraising options, as the Plan suggests. Of course, we also have to make sure we do this fairly.
   • Participants debated lowering the threshold for local option taxes from two-thirds to 55% of those voting. Because property owners disproportionate shoulder the responsibility for such tax increases, they deserve the historical protection of the two-thirds vote.

3. Student Fees for Higher Education: Do you believe there should be additional (or different) financial aid to assure that students with more limited financial means will continue to be able to afford higher education? If yes, what funding sources should be used? Since California fees are relatively low, should fee increases for families who can afford to carry a larger share of the expenses for higher education be considered?

   • The state needs to do everything in its power to ensure that low income Californians can attend college. Of particular interest is a tiered rate system, where tuition would be based on a student's ability to pay. Another approach is to raise fees/tuition for all students and then cover the increase with student aid for those who cannot afford it.
   • California needs to continue to increase financial aid opportunities for college students to ensure that those who still can't afford the low fees are able to attend school.
   • Participants discussed the loss to the state in federal tuition tax credits because tuitions are below the limits set in the federal programs. It was noted that the state loses between $300 and $600 million of uncaptured federal tax credits. If the state raised fees, it could then subsidize needy students through fee exemptions and financial aid awards. The most significant loss is actually in the Federal Pell Grant Program.
   • Since higher education is voluntary, students should be held responsible for a portion of their education in loans. Instead of moving to replace loans with grants, the state should encourage loan forgiveness programs for students who choose occupations that directly benefit the state-nursing and teaching careers for example.
   • Participants debated whether community college should be free. It was noted that "free" is financially unrealistic and poor public policy. It would damage the colleges by requiring substantial cuts (e.g., fewer classes, laid off faculty) if the state did not "backfill" funds.
   • Concern was raised about the cost of higher education and the need for counseling so students do not incur debt beyond their capacity to earn and pay it back in a reasonable amount of time. Students need effective information and counseling about the student financial aid available.
   • There should be more student aid in the form of grants and work. As long as we face a serious grant/loan imbalance and we graduate people with too much debt, we need to continue to increase our grant funds.
   • While increased fees may be considered, students' ability to pay non-tuition costs of attending college is of concern. We need to make funding of education reflect the actual costs of all of education: housing, living expenses, counseling, health services, advising. If more investment were made to guarantee a shorter time to degree, these non-academic costs would be reduced.

   While this summary contains the highlights from the many ideas that were offered, far more comprehensive information may be found in the discussion archives. We highly recommend that you read the original postings to discover the full richness of the discussion. We suggest you chose the Thread viewing option.

   Background summaries, daily topics, questions and background information are available from the Agenda page.

   Wednesday, June 12 will focus on Governance.

   I welcome your comments on the summaries.

   Sally Hedman
   Reporter
   

   Agenda Pages
   Background	Student Learning	Emerging Modes
   Personnel Development	Workforce Preparation	School Readiness
   Facilities & Finance	Governance	Wrap-up