Where the Real Problem with School Funding Lies

There has been a great hue and cry lately about the budgets, funding and spending in the Novato Unified School District. Sadly, there is a lot to cry about. Teachers are losing jobs, important classes are being cut and school closures loom. And let's face it, teachers do not get paid as much as their responsibilities warrant.

One of the popular avenues for protest is to blame the administration for things such as the salary of the Superintendent. The average teachers salary in Novato is a bit shy of $60,000. Our new Superintendent's salary is a bit over three times that. NUSD has around 675 employees. The average CEO with that many employees earns between $150,000 - $300,000 per year. So our incoming Superintendent's salary isn't really out of line.

So where should our efforts go, if we take away Superintendent bashing? The answer is the state and the way they allot revenue for school districts.

Novato is what is known as a low-wealth district. This following report explains it more clearly that I could. (Keep in mind while you read it that the Tamalpais High School District's school spending per pupil is twice that of Novato. I don't begrudge them for having the money, but it is a glaring example of the disparity.)

====================

What is a "low wealth" district?
A low-wealth school district traditionally has been a district that receives less money than the statewide average revenue limit.

How did I become a "low wealth" district?
More than 30 years ago, funding of education in California changed dramatically. Before 1972, schools were funded primarily through local property taxes. The amount was
determined by a community's assessed valuation. Because of the differences in the property wealth of communities, substantial inequities developed between school districts (the wealthier the community, the more money available for schools). The Serrano v. Priest lawsuit was filed in 1968 by a parent, John Serrano, against the State (Ivy Baker Priest was the State Treasurer), claiming that this local tax-based funding of schools was unfair.

In 1972, in response to the lawsuit, the State Legislature established the funding formula
that exists today. The dollar amount per child, called the "base revenue limit," was based on what schools were spending at the time, which, in turn, was based on the local property tax yield. Except for annual inflation adjustments, schools were essentially frozen at the 1972 level of spending. Thus, the equalization of funds was not achieved. Districts that had a wealth advantage then, still have the highest revenue limits today. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 added further complexity to the equalization issue.

In addition, legislation signed into law in 1997 (SB 727-Rosenthal), repealed laws that allowed the accounting of excused absences as part of the school district's average daily
attendance (ADA). SB 727 provided for the increase of each district's per pupil revenue limit to compensate for the district?s unique (1996-97) percentage of excused absences. Districts are now credited with less ADA, but receive more for each remaining unit of ADA, thereby suffering no fiscal loss. The process, however, has left every district with a different per pupil revenue limit, due to differences in excused absence rates. Consequently, some school districts benefit more from old funding formulas prior to the enactment of SB 727 (pre-SB
727) and some school districts find themselves newly categorized as "low wealth" in the wake of SB 727's passage (post-SB 727).

What does it mean in terms of funding for my school district if I am "low wealth?"
While great strides have been made over the years by the Association of Low Wealth Schools
and key legislators to equalize revenue limits, the situation still exists where some school districts receive $300, $500, or even $1000 more per ADA than their neighboring district.

ALWS would contend that inequitable funding leads to inequities in resources of all kinds to school districts. The differences in funding between neighboring school districts is often seen in fewer educational 0pportunities per student, such as higher class sizes, lower salary schedules, fewer books and materials, etc. As the legislature and the Administration are
requiring more and more from school districts in terms of service delivery and
performance standards, ALWS would argue that the measurement for these new mandates can not be equal if the resources and funding are not equal.

====================
So if we want to solve this problem, we will be better served solving it where the problem is and where a solution can be affected. It certainly beats fanning the flames of frustration, acrimony and anger at home. And then let's pay our Novato teachers and staff what they are worth and deserve.