Joan Buchanan, the Autonomous chair of the Assembly Education Committee, grilled administration officials at length Wednesday on Gov. Jerry Brown's program to reform school funding. She wanted, without success, to go them to concede there are flaws and inconsistencies in the program.

Assembly Education Chair Joan Buchanan speaks at the hearing on Wednesday (photo from Cal Channel video).

Associates Education Chair Joan Buchanan speaks at the hearing on Wednesday (photo from Cal Channel video).

Buchanan'due south intense questioning prompted a frustrated Assemblymember Das Williams, a fellow Democrat from Santa Barbara, to phone call for a shift in the discussion from "poking holes" in the program to "doing what nosotros can to make it work."

Their exchange captured the divide amidst Democrats and the instruction community between those, like Williams, who want to deed now on Chocolate-brown's Local Control Funding initiative to redo a schoolhouse funding system universally acknowledged to be irrational and inequitable, and those, like Buchanan, D-Alamo, who are struggling to understand the details of a complex program hundreds of pages long.

"I feel like we take the opportunity of a lifetime here," said Williams, a former customs organizer. "I would vote for it if put to us today. Justice should non accept to look a year."

While agreeing with Brownish'south goal of directing more than money to high-needs students and "the moral imperative to accept these kids succeed," Buchanan added, "We need to be clear how the program works. We need to read the details; otherwise, there is an abdication of the Legislature'south responsibility."

In this looming divide over finance reform, a pretty good predictor of support for the plan is how legislators' school districts will fare. Buchanan, an eighteen-year school trustee with San Ramon Valley Unified, serves a largely suburban region. She maintains that her districts would not receive enough money nether Brown's Local Control Funding Formula to bring spending levels back to where they were before the recession in 2007-08.

Williams represents a diverse region of rich enclaves, like Montecito, and less affluent districts, like Oxnard, with a high proportion of low-income children, that would gain essentially. "My district is illustrative of inequities in funding," he said. "Nosotros don't have equal funding in education."

Buchanan is far from solitary in resisting pressure to push through reforms that have not been thoroughly vetted. Senate Democratic leaders also called this week for a twelvemonth's filibuster. Buchanan and Assemblymember Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, who chairs the Upkeep Committee's education subcommittee, run into technical challenges that need fixing and major policy questions that need thorough give-and-take.

Backers of the LCFF, like Williams, fearfulness tactics of filibuster, decease past ane,000 questions. Brown has made the LCFF his priority this twelvemonth; supporters say adjustments can be made during the vii-year transition to the new system.

Buchanan and others say sweeping changes to the single largest source of state spending – almost 40 percent of the land budget goes to education – must exist done carefully.

Waiting for revisions in May

What's not known at this point is to what extent the Dark-brown administration is willing to modify the LCFF in the governor's May revision of the state budget, out in near two weeks. At Wednesday's hearing, Nicolas Schweizer, who's in charge of instruction issues for the Section of Finance, and Sue Burr, back from retirement every bit executive manager of the Country Lath of Education to help Brown out with the LCFF, were good poker players. Without hinting at any specific accommodations, they said the administration is weighing various suggestions.

Nicolas Schweizer of the Department of Finance answers a question from Buchanan during the hearing (photo from Cal Channel video).

Nicolas Schweizer of the Department of Finance answers a question from Buchanan during the hearing (photo from Cal Aqueduct video).

Forth with transferring Sacramento'southward power over the purse to local districts, by ending most chiselled or restricted programs, Brownish is proposing to funnel about an extra third more money per educatee for each low-income child and English learner. In add-on, Brown is proposing money on height of that for those districts in which loftier-needs students form a majority. Districts serving only disadvantaged students could potentially become 53 percent more coin – more $3,000 more than per student – than districts with few high-needs students.

Buchanan, who did nearly all of the interrogating at the hearing, didn't question LCFF's underlying concept of providing equity in funding or the amount of the supplement for targeted students. But she did intensely question other aspects of the programme – almost of which accept been already raised in previous hearings or in analyses by the Legislative Analyst'due south Function and the Public Policy Institute of California. They include:

  • Size of the core grant for all students:

This is the nearly contentious upshot – and one that Brown can resolve. He is proposing an average of $6,812 per student, which would restore the base of operations funding in 2007-08, known as the revenue limit, and build in toll-of-living increases since and so and moving forrard. This excludes special education and a few other programs. Just the base also does non include categorical money for programs like instructor training, textbooks and edifice maintenance, because chiselled programs would disappear nether the new system. Districts with high-needs students would go the equivalent of that money – and more than – in the form of supplemental dollars they can spend as they want. But districts with few high-needs students would lose coin they in one case had.

Buchanan pressed the point: "Does not every child deserve textbooks, every instructor deserve training? You can't talk nigh local control if it doesn't include funding."

Schweizer said the administration would consider adding $200 to $300 more per student to the base. Others say it should be upward to $500 – virtually $three billion statewide – or more, depending on which categoricals are defined as essential for all students.

  • Concentration grant:

Brown is proposing bonus dollars where high-needs students comprise a majority in a district to compensate for the impact of full-bodied poverty. Senate Democrats are proposing to eliminate concentration grants. Buchanan instead suggested that the money be awarded to school sites, not districts. She cited Elk Grove Unified, where schools serving primarily disadvantaged students would get no concentration money because the overall district boilerplate is much lower. Every bit a result, high-needs students in two schools with identical demographics just located in unlike districts would get different amounts of money.

Schweizer said the administration built its model on district allocations and was concerned nearly a possible inflation of school-site information. In a recent comment in EdSource Today, school consultant Rob Manwaring elaborated in objecting to school-site based grants. There would be, he wrote, a "horrible incentive to further segregate our schools and to terminate school selection programs like those in San Francisco that offer greater option to low income students. Basically, nether a school site concentration organization, a district could brand more than coin if it consolidates its depression income students into some of its schools and keeps all of the center form students in other schools."

  • Exempted categoricals:

Two big categorical programs totaling $1.3 billion – funding for desegregation programs, known as Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grants, or TIIG, and habitation-to-schoolhouse busing – would be kept intact with current distribution formulas. In the example of busing, the formula is outdated and fails to fund adequately districts that accept grown in the past two decades. Thus, Pasadena gets $3 million while Palmdale, with a like number of students, gets $300,000, Buchanan said. TIIG favors a handful of districts that sought the money years agone: Los Angeles Unified gets more than $800 per student and San Jose Unified almost $1,000 per educatee, compared with $viii per student in Santa Ana, with 91 percent disadvantaged students.

Schweizer cited the threat of lawsuits equally justification for keeping the programs intact – a rationale that the LAO found unpersuasive, as did Buchanan and other commission members. With few exceptions, many court orders setting up desegregation programs take been lifted, newly elected Democratic Assemblymember Shirley Weber said. She urged the assistants to face up the consequence of TIIG. The "glaring inequities" that benefit a few districts are "a thorn in the side of my colleagues" and make it "harder to sell" the LCFF, she said.

  • Accountability for spending:

To ensure that supplemental dollars are spent on targeted students, each district will be required to write a plan, which the county part of instruction will review, spelling out how money would exist used to improve academic results for subgroups of students. Some advocates for minority students argue this won't go far enough, particularly if the money doesn't bring results.

At the hearing, Buchanan focused on another aspect: The accountability features volition not kick in until the LCFF is fully funded, in an estimated seven years. In the interim, Schweizer acknowledged, "the cardinal premise is that districts should exist trusted" to spend increasing amounts of coin on targeted students.

Michael Hulsizer

Michael Hulsizer

"There is more accountability at present than under the new system in the transition period," Buchanan responded. The administration'southward assumption "is unrealistic," she said.

Buchanan plans an additional hearing on the accountability issue.

Several dozen patient observers waited for iv hours Wednesday to requite one minute of testimony. Amidst them was Michael Hulsizer, chief deputy of governmental affairs for the Kern Canton Superintendent of Schools and a supporter of Brownish's formula. "We think Finance is listening," he said, "and are confident that the May revision will accost concerns."

A lot volition ride on the outcome.

To become more than reports like this 1, click here to sign up for EdSource's no-cost daily e-mail on latest developments in education.