By Nicholas von Wettberg
The Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) Board of Education is scheduled to meet this Thursday and part of the presentation portion of the agenda includes a district-led report on the impact of Governor Brown’s January budget update.
Thanks to a number of education recovery factors – among them, an increase in General Fund revenues and local property taxes – California’s 10,000-plus schools can anticipate a slight boost in funding for the next fiscal year.
The district’s planning process for the Second Interim Budget, due out in March, now enters its early stages, until May, when the California Governor’s Budget revisions are released and the DJUSD tasks its 2016-17 Adoption Budget.
Part of the discussion between board and staff, at the city’s Community Chambers, will focus on the proposed additional revenue, a possible $3 million, generated through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
As a whole, California’s budget continues to benefit from its investment into the LCFF, which began in 2013-14 and has exceeded initial state funding projections by a reported $6 million.
Each school district in the state (there are over 100 of them) is required to devise its own Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), which, according to the budget summary will identifiy “local goals for all students in eight state priorities and describe planned actions, services and expenditures to achieve these goals.”
Some of the district needs funded by LCFF revenue are salary scales defined in the California Budget Act (CBA), increases in State Pension Cost, class size reduction, and Strategic Plan goals.
Along with budget funding provided by the LCFF, the district will also receive a one-time Mandated Cost Payment, an estimated amount of $1.6 million.
According to the agenda syllabus for the upcoming meeting, the program funding “will support our current needs for the implementation of curriculum adoptions and technology presented as part of the First Interim budget.”
The district has listed what it deems its seven themes for the 2016-17 Governor’s Budget: the stabilization of funding and programs in all areas of state budget; completing repayment of the Education Maintenance Factor in 2015-16; Proposition 98 revenues remain underestimated by the state; the governor giving warning of possible downturn; legislative and advocacy issues arising, and the need for them to be addressed; the continued emphasis on the LCAP; and the district proceeding with caution.
Perhaps the centralized theme to the Governor’s Budget update, aside from what the summary calls “greater local financial flexibility” is that, while things are economically good, and revenue streams remain beneficial to overall efforts in narrowing the achievement gap, there will come a time, just like nearly a decade ago, when the well runs dry and coffers become in demand.
However, that should not prevent the district from continuing to ask the state for an increase in education funding.
As a part of the district’s preparation for a future recession, the plan is not to rely on the temporary taxes as a result of Proposition 30 to fund education, which included an increase on personal income tax for high-income earners, ending in 2018, with a quarter increase in state sales tax that runs out at the beginning of next year.
According to the budget update summary, the state is projecting “to eliminate almost 50 percent of the remaining funding gap to full implementation, bringing total formula implementation to 95 percent.”
Once the implementation is full then the only funding each district receives from the state, via the LCFF, would be a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), and according to district projections falls somewhere between two to three percent, causing possible future reductions.
Added emphasis will be placed on the revenues generated by Proposition 98, which for the revised current year is at a guaranteed $69.2 million and a projected $71.6 million for 2016-17.
One thing looming over California’s head is the reappearance of a new Maintenance Factor “obligation” of over half a billion dollars that is scheduled for the fiscal new year.
Joining the list of aforementioned state budget proposals are $1.2 billion for “discretionary one-time uses,” another $365.4 million for Proposition 39, known as the Clean Energy Jobs Act, and $61 million towards growth in average daily attendance supporting charter schools.
The DJUSD is projecting the revenue received through the discretionary one-time funding – courtesy of Prop. 98 – to land at around $1.6 million.
The question is asked, “What does the January revision mean for the DJUSD?” One element to the answer is an upward trend, for 2016-17, with somewhere around $8,000 per ADA (average daily attendance) funding from the LCFF.
As defined in the LCAP, the public is part of the financing system, and is asked to participate in Board meeting forums.
we’ve focused so much on the city budget, no one is paying attention to the likely parcel tax for the schools.
This was discussed at a school board meeting last Wednesday. The Vanguard didn’t cover it. Here’s the Davis Enterprise summary.
I read this in the article you referenced the other day:
That’s really hard to believe. If true why is Davis so underfunded compared to every other city in America? This just doesn’t sound right to me.
So in other words illegal immigration is hurting our local Davis school funding.
BP: So in other words illegal immigration is hurting our local Davis school funding.
And how do we know that students are illegal/undocumented? That’s your assumption. Supplemental funding for English language learners and lower income (free/reduced lunch) mostly comes from state and federal sources.
BP: That’s really hard to believe. If true why is Davis so underfunded compared to every other city in America? This just doesn’t sound right to me.
Look under financial data here. If you take the total per student funding rate and subtract local revenue sources (local school parcel taxes), then that gets you in the neighborhood of the number that Sunder mentioned.
And why is that, what’s makes Davis so special as to be on the bottom of the list, nationally or in CA?
Just an educated guess. Where do you think most of the non-English speaking students are coming from? Legal residents of the State? NOT !!!
BP: Where do you think most of the non-English speaking students are coming from?
In Davis? UC Davis international students, researchers, and faculty here on visas with their families.
But our local non English speakers actually get us more funding so they’re not the point. It’s all of the non English speaking children across the state and nation that’s lowering our local funds because other cities have more non English speaking immigrants and therefor get more funding. So yes, illegal immigrants across our state is hurting Davis school funding because we get less of the pie.
BP: So yes, illegal immigrants across our state is hurting Davis school funding because we get less of the pie.
They’re part of the economy and the tax base.
Also, California schools are not allowed ask immigration status of student families.
bp: let’s say that’s true. that there are millions of children of illegal immigrants in our schools. the first problem you have is a lot of them are citizens. the second problem you have is you really can’t deport millions of people without it being massively disruptive. so do you really want a whole bunch of kids growing up without schooling in this state?
His point is that they are part of our school funding challenges, and that is generally NOT included in the calculation of the net economic benefits… primarily because those calculations would be done by government workers that have a vested interest in supporting the CA teachers union that needs to demonstrate a continuous funding problem to demand still more tax increases.
Welcome to the Left Coast, where hypersensitivity and hurt feelings cause us copious tax pain.
If they are American citizens they would be either anchor babies that have been schooled in English from day one (or at least they should be… maybe that is the problems… that they live in Spanish-speaking enclaves and are not getting English immersion)… or they would be second generation and again should be getting English from day one.
So do you want to try again?
i think you’re mischaracterizing objections to draconian immigration policies.
wdf1: Also, California schools are not allowed ask immigration status of student families.
Frankly: Welcome to the Left Coast, where hypersensitivity and hurt feelings cause us copious tax pain.
Sorry to blow your biased perception that this somehow reflective of California crunchy grooviness, but this is actually the case in many other states, including red states, that public schools don’t ask for immigration status.
Only because King Obama and his henchman Eric Holder issued another edict to threaten state’s federal money for education if they didn’t comply.
wdf1: Also, California schools are not allowed ask immigration status of student families.
Frankly: Welcome to the Left Coast, where hypersensitivity and hurt feelings cause us copious tax pain.
wdf1: Sorry to blow your biased perception that this somehow reflective of California crunchy grooviness, but this is actually the case in many other states, including red states, that public schools don’t ask for immigration status.
Frankly: Only because King Obama and his henchman Eric Holder issued another edict to threaten state’s federal money for education if they didn’t comply.
This has been the case under Republican administrations (Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush) as well as Democrats.
The Daily Caller: Internet myth: Ronald Reagan regretted legalization
Frankly: Only because King Obama and his henchman Eric Holder issued another edict to threaten state’s federal money for education if they didn’t comply.
On the other hand, Obama’s general deportation policy has made his Republican predecessors look like real wimps in this area.
Obama may actually be your man if you want high rates of deportation.
Frankly: His point is that they are part of our school funding challenges, and that is generally NOT included in the calculation of the net economic benefits… primarily because those calculations would be done by government workers that have a vested interest in supporting the CA teachers union that needs to demonstrate a continuous funding problem to demand still more tax increases.
Then educating them improves their net economic benefit to our society. I don’t think state government workers give any thought to the teachers union. I don’t see that as being their concern.
If your champion, Donald Trump, were to have his way in deporting illegal/undocumented immigrants, there would be a moral outcry over splitting up families (the most common situation is probably that one spouse is legal, the other not). This is more common than you might imagine. In supporting this policy, you lose credibility in discussing the need for family stability as a way to raise healthy, well-adjusted kids.
My wife was a few months away from losing legal status, and we would have fallen into that category. We were lucky that a few circumstances fell into place to avoid this. The process for determining legal status in an individual does not necessarily reflect the ability of that person to make a positive impact to society.
There was a Republican primary debate in 1980 between Bush Sr. & Reagan over the topic of immigration, and a video excerpt of that encounter has been making the rounds recently, mostly to present the conversation in contrast to today’s discussions about immigration. Trump’s (& co.) policy would have been extreme in those days.
Question: “Do you think that the children of illegal aliens should be allowed to attend Texas public schools free, or do you think that their parents should pay for their education?”
FYI, it was at the same time as the MRIC forum and Nicholas wasn’t able to make it that night.
Here’s the video archive of the meeting. It’s not as long as most school board meetings.