California Education: Another System Fails Black Life

by Amadi Maatafale

Introduction

Students of color in California often attend public schools where unfortunately many districts are underfunded, and this funding inequality hinders Black students’ socioeconomic mobility. In a nation which pushes education as the way to overcome socio-economic disadvantages, vast funding disparities between school districts place the quality of marginalized students’ lives substantially behind their peers.

K-12 schools in Califor nia's public education system face a funding problem. Most of the funding problems affect schools in low-income communities where the vast inequalities and disparities found throughout the system are compounded. The public school system's lack of funding and equitability has always gone hand-in-hand with the state's racial discrimination against marginalized communities. A report published by the EdBuild, a research and advocacy group in New Jersey, showed that school districts who serve predominantly Black and Brown students receive approximately 23 billion dollars less in funding than schools that serve predominantly white students. California –home to countless tech giants, an enormous entertainment industry, major agricultural regions, and many other successful industries– is the fifth largest economy globally and the wealthiest state in the nation. Earning more than $10,000 above the national average, the median income of a Californian household is $71,000 per year. California is near last nationally in school spending, the number of staff in its schools, and in academic performance. California’s school funding was insufficient to meet state and grades standards and address the needs of students, particularly given the state’s high cost of living. The struggle school’s faced was exacerbated by the pandemic. In school spending helped to lift achievement over the past half-century. California’s ambitious effort–progressively distributing $23 billion in yearly funding to poorer districts– has yet to reduce disparities in learning.

This ar ticle takes a pragmatic approach to the issue of school funding in California. This article establishes how California has never done right by Black students by establishing the origin of funding disparities, California’s attempt to create equality between school districts, and the failure of that attempt. The State of California’s efforts to make school districts equitable has at best fallen short, and at worst, been entirely insufficient to meet students' needs. This paper argues that to provide equitable funding California has to get rid of the current funding formula because the formula leaves intact key aspects that have been proven to insufficiently meet the needs of Black students. In order to understand what needs to change, the article first reviews how funding for California public schools changed starting in the 1970’s, which later led to the decision in Serrano v. Priest(1971).

History of School Funding in California

Until the late 1970’s, California funded its schools through local property taxes charged at rates set by local school boards. The amount raised for local schools drastically differed from one another, depending on the local tax rate and the assessed value of local homes and commercial properties. California’s public schools divided funding into three categories: property tax (60%), state (34%) and federal (6%). Counties and neighborhoods with higher property values were able to direct more money to the local education system. Districts in affluent suburban neighborhoods had better schools than inner-city areas. Public school districts in wealthy white suburbs were far ahead of Black and Latino neighborhoods many of which were still subject to forms of de facto racial segregation. The large wealth gap between various districts with respect to tax base and expenditures meant poorer districts had to tax themselves at much higher rates to match the expenditures of wealthier districts, if this was even possible . In the late 1960s, for example, the Baldwin Park Unified School District in Los Angeles County spent $577 per pupil . Meanwhile, Beverly Hills spent $1,231, though it taxed itself at half the rate. The reason for the disparity was clear: In Baldwin Park, total assessed property value translated to less than $4,000 per child, while in Beverly Hills, it equaled over $50,000 per child. As a result in 1968-69, the Baldwin Park School District spent $577.49 to educate each of its pupils, while Pasadena spent $840.19 and Beverly Hills spent $1,231.72.

The Attempted Fix

Serrano v. Priest (1971), initiated by John Serrano and Ivy Baker Priest in 1968, brought to light the inequitable school funding caused by wealth gaps between districts . Serrano(1971) challenged the inequities created by the U.S. tradition of using property taxes as the principal source of revenue for public schools. California’s method of funding public education, because of these district-to-district disparities, “fails to meet the requirements of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution.” “[As] a direct result of the financing scheme they are required to pay a higher tax rate than [taxpayers] in many other school districts in order to obtain for their children the same or lesser educational opportunities afforded children in those other districts.” The Supreme Court of the United States held the vast discrepancies in school funding because of differences in district wealth represented a denial of equal opportunity. Serrano v. Priest (1971) required California to separate total school district spending from local assessed property value.

The State legislators passed Senate Bill 90 in 1972; the revenue limit system it created put a ceiling on the amount of general-purpose money each district could receive. The Legislature authorized the State Board of Control to hear and decide upon claims requesting reimbursement for costs mandated by the state. In 1976, as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Serano (1971) California forced district equalization by adjusting districts’ revenue limits.State leaders increased revenue limits faster for low-spending districts to close the gap over time. The court focused only on general-purpose operating expenditures, ignoring categorical aid and construction funds. The Court’s decision held a broad approach to the law leading to problems becoming exacerbated in low-income districts. California state leaders never dealt with the system of how school districts funded capital expenditures, facilities and infrastructure cost – which to this day depend on the very inequities the Court found so objectionable in the decision of Serrano V Priest (1971) . Before the state could equalize spending, voters passed California’s 1978 Proposition 13 in 1978 which drastically cut local property taxes and school revenues. California’s Proposition 13 drastically cut and capped property taxes at 1% and crippled the ability of California counties – and, indirectly, the state – to raise money for schools . California made up some of the lost funding in local school districts and assumed primary responsibility for funding schools. In most districts, property taxes, at 1% of assessed value, were not enough to cover the revenue limit requirements set in the Court’s decision of Serrano(1971) . Even though the State of California attempted to recoup lost funds, fiscal cuts were inevitable. Summer schools and adult education programs were among the first cut. Vocational education, counseling, maintenance, assistant principals, and librarians soon followed. California’s 1978 Proposition 13 decision removed the power of school boards to impose local property taxes for local schools. School districts had no local control over the amount of money available to fund their schools. To prevent education funding from plummeting, the California legislature stepped in, allocating state funds from a budget surplus to protect schools from what would have otherwise been massive cuts. In an effort to stabilize school funding, voters passed Proposition 98 in 1988. The measure designated about 40% of the state’s General Fund revenues for K–12 schools and community colleges. California’s 1978 Proposition 13 centralized power over the education system in the capitol. The California State Legislature and the governor became responsible for determining how funding would be distributed to districts. School boards were left with the narrower job of playing the hand dealt to them by the state.

By 1983 the State of California had assumed control of approximately 80% of all school funding, leaving schools vulnerable to the volatility of the state’s sales and income-tax revenue streams. Overnight, the tax revenue available to pay for public schooling was slashed by one-third. In 1977, California spent about $7,400 per pupil, about $1,000 above the national average . Between 1970 and 1997, per pupil spending in California fell more than 15 percent relative to spending in other states. By 1983 when the Court, ruled on Serrano v Priest (1971 declared the equalization job was done, California’s per pupil spending had dropped to $6,700, dipping below the national average, where it has generally stayed.

Failure of System to Adequately Address Funding Issues

The state determined how districts spent educational funding through a complex system of 50+ restricted “categorical” programs. Despite additional funding meant to offset differences, the budgets of low-income districts with high-need students often fall extremely short of reaching anything similar to that of their wealthier counterparts. Districts in wealthy neighborhoods can use the 1% assessed value from surrounding property to supplement state funding.

Taking Laguna Beach Unified School District as an example, the second best school district in California spends $20,467 per student each year. Comprised of only four schools with a total of 2,788 students and 30% minority enrollment, Laguna Beach Unified School District gets 87.5% of its funds locally, only 10.9% of funding comes from the state government. Districts like Laguna Beach Unified School District have the ability to enhance programs instead of cutting them. The wellfunded district students are not subject to the many budget cuts of poorer districts– meaning students have access to counselors, after-school programs, and their schools are maintained. Providing students with amenities and resources is an ability many low-income schools can not afford. There is also a tendency to section off small affluent islands of well-funded schools in larger disadvantaged areas that serve mostly students of color. Predominantly white districts are typically smaller, yet receive $23 billion more than districts that are predominantly students of color. Smaller districts offer more local control, often encouraging more investment in education since the investment is directly observable in the school’s physical environment and student outcome.

Compared to districts in the lower 50%, Laguna Beach Unified School District is far ahead. Oakland Unified School District, for example. contains 87 schools and 36,154 students. The district’s minority enrollment is 90% with 53.0% of the district’s students being economically disadvantaged. Oakland Unified School District spends $15,554 per student each year, with 49.5% of the district's funding coming from the state, 41.4% coming from the local area. Compared to Laguna Beach Unified, Oakland Unified has more than X12 the students, more than X21 the school buildings, and more high-need students. Districts with many economically disadvantaged minority students require considerably more money because students need more resources. Districts, such as Oakland Unified, were supposed to be equitable to districts similar to Laguna Unified, yet the inherent disadvantages of low-income districts make equitability unreachable.

California created a new school funding formula in 2013 as an attempt to make school’s across districts more equitable. Named the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), the law shifts towards a simpler, more rational and equitable school finance system. The new law “aims to improve outcomes by providing more resources to meet the education needs of low-income students, English language learners and foster youth.” LCFF gives a greater level of autonomy to districts by giving them greater flexibility over how they choose to spend state funding. In exchange for greater flexibility, school districts must provide greater transparency on how the money will be spent. School districts are required to produce a 3-year spending and academic plan called the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). A district must explain in its local spending plan how its use of supplemental and concentration funds will “increase or improve services” for high-need students “in proportion to the increase in” supplemental and concentration funds it receives. Districts are required to annually update its plan, whether schools adhered to its plan, and what progress has been made to close gaps between districts.

With the exception of a few remaining categorical funds, money will go directly to districts based on student attendance. Each district will receive the same base grant for each student based on grade level. Then, the district will receive additional “supplemental” and “concentration” grants based on the numbers and concentration of high-need students (defined as low-income, English language learner, or foster youth under the law). LCFF is supposed to give districts that serve more high-need students more funding overall than a district of the same size that serves fewer high-need students.

California’s adoption of the Local Control Funding Formula leaves important aspects of the prior K-12 funding system intact. The new funding approach California state leaders took to equalize school districts left districts serving primarily Black students at an inherent disadvantage. Funding for facilities still depends crucially on local property wealth, which has been shown to be a detrimental way to make districts equitable. Per student state funding is still highest in the districts with the fewest high-need students. Children living in disadvantaged communities tend to have high rates of school truancy, disengagement, and chronic absenteeism, making funding based on attendance flawed. Schools in predominantly Black communities continue to feel the effects of California’s 1978 Proposition 13 and the Local Control Funding Formula does nothing to reverse the effects. In order for school districts in predominantly Black low-income communities, where fiscal cuts were inevitable, to become equitable the schools need separate maintenance funding specifically to reverse the effects of budget cuts. Separate funding would provide schools the ability to enhance their facilities, provide necessary up-to-date educational supplies, and support staff.

Conclusion

Until the late 1970’s, California, like most states, funded its schools through local property taxes levied at rates set by local school boards. California is spending less on education because of policy choices it has made. The state directs fewer resources to education than do other states, and its chosen tax sources are volatile, making education funding vulnerable during economic downturns.For decades California’s state spending on education has been subpar. The Golden state’s subpar abilities have come at the cost of Black and Brown children’s education.