Should low-income districts receive more state funding?

By Taylor St. Germain
News Editor

The proposed Local Control Funding Formula, California Governor Jerry Browns’s plan to spend money from Proposition 30, is an ill-advised plan that will end up hurting all districts despite its positive intentions.

The LCFF will create an income-based formula for the distribution of Prop 30 funds for school districts within California. Lower-income, English-learner or foster children will receive a higher per-student grant from the state. The plan differs from the current distribution of funds, which is controlled by a complex formula unrelated to demographics, based on a variety of other factors.

If LCFF is passed, Manhattan Beach Unified School District will not lose any funds from what it currently receives from the state. According to the California Department of Finance, over the next seven years, Prop 30 will create an income of $15.5 billion to go to education in California, a majority of which will be directed at students in need of support, but this funding lacks the proper oversight to be effective.
Although LCFF will not cut funding in the long run, it eliminates previous budget cuts from 2007. So while baseline funding will go up for all districts, it simply reverses mistakes of the past, leaving 230 districts across the state receiving little or no additional funds, according to the California Department of Finance.

Additionally, Brown’s campaign for Proposition 30 did not include the plan of LCFF. This is an issue for the higher income families who supported Prop 30 expecting increased revenue to their schools. This duplicity leads to residents paying more California income tax to receive less funding for their districts, misleading the voters.

With the recent budget deficit and distribution of pink slips to teachers, MBUSD needs the financial support. Students throughout all areas of California are suffering from the lack of government educational funding, and those in wealthier districts should not receive such a small portion of funding.
Since funds under LCFF are not given explicit purposes, they cannot be used effectively. The plan does not take into consideration certain categorical funds such as desegregation money. This gives state funds to districts with increased African American population, such as Los Angeles Unified School District, to combat segregation in schools. This excess money could offset the balance between the districts receiving money through LCFF.

Within schools receiving generalized grants, the money could go to several different sources, completely bypassing the students. Teachers with tenure can receive pay raises before new programs and curriculum that would aid student education are implemented. With the state not able to directly dictate where funds are going, LCFF’s main intention seems to be nearly impossible. The Chicago Teacher Union’s push for a 17.6 percent raise over four years proves union’s ability to negotiate in even low-income districts. Under LCFF, the intended areas for money distribution, low income districts, could never receive the grants designated to them.

Additionally, according to PTA Legislative Advocacy Representative Leanne Huebner, the transparency of the process is further undermined by Governor Brown’s attaching LCFF to the state budget. This means that it has been accelerated through the political process, decreasing the input received on this important proposal which will have a massive impact on California education.

Currently, LCFF is not the most effective plan for distribution of funds for California’s educational system. Instead, the requirements for additional funding should be changed to require a higher proportion of low income students in a specific district. This will create a more fair distribution of funding by raising the baseline funding for all districts and ensuring excess money goes only to districts with the greatest need.