LCFF and LCAP, what does it mean for OUSD?

The increase in state funding for OUSD this year due to the increase in LCFF dollars (Local Control Funding Formula) is over $1 million.

How will those funds be allocated?

The funds will be allocated according to the Goals and Priorities in the LCAP,  the Local Control Accountability Plan. School Districts are required per Ed Code #52060 to get LOCAL input from all stakeholders in developing their LCAP Goals and Priorities, and how to allocate the LCFF funds.

Ed Code 52060(g): "A governing board of a school district shall consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the school district, parents, and pupils in developing a local control and accountability plan."

This is separate from the CCSS Implementation Funds. OUSD is receiving $499,000 in CCSS Implementation Funds (approximately $200 per student state-wide). The CCSS Implementation Funds must be used only for 3 purposes: 1) Professional Development for Common Core, 2) Instructional Materials, 3) Technology for CCSS testing (SBAC).

Overview: The LCFF and LCAP are part of the most significant change in California public school finance in the last 40 years.  The new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) radically changed the State K-12 funding allocation method (thus, "Funding Formula"), and greatly reduced restrictions on State funds allowing local decision making and priorities  to drive district budget development ("Local Control"). 

Under the LCFF, most State funding coming to school districts and schools will have fewer restrictions.  No longer does the State direct money for some of the specific programs that had been historically funded (i.e., textbooks, counseling, deferred maintenance, safety, etc.). The use of LCFF funds now is required to be determined by local decision making. 

  

Three excellent sources of information regarding the key aspects of the LCFF are:

1. theCalifornia Department of Education (CDE), http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp

2. theLegislative Analyst Office (LAO)

http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-072913.aspx

3. WestEd who is working with the State Board of Education (SBE). 

http://lcff.wested.org/lcff-channel/episode-8-overview-of-the-local-control-and-accountability-plan/

One of the major requirements in LCFF requires all school districts to develop a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) that aligns the district's financial resources with its educational goals in the LCAP. 

Eight State Priority Areas were adopted  by the SBE, that all districts must address in their LCAP: 

·       Student Achievement

·       Student Engagement

·       Common Core Standards

·       School Climate

·       Parental Involvement

·       Course Access

·       Basic Services

·       Other Student Outcomes

The LCAP requires districts to solicit input from all stakeholders in the development of its goals in the priority areas. 

The LCAP is a 3 year plan which must be approved by 7/1/14, and updated every year thereafter, and is detailed in Education Code #52060-52077:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division=4.&title=2.&part=28.&chapter=6.1.&article=4.5.

§ 15497. Local Control and Accountability Plan and Annual Update Template: (SBE)

http://instruction.sbceo.org/pdf/Curriculum%20Council/Jan_2014/SBE-LCAP%20Draft%20Template-Jan%2016%20Item%2020%20Attachment%203.pdf

______________________________________________________________________

Leg Analyst Office (LAO): An Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula, (pg 10-13 pasted in below):  http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-072913.aspx

Transparency and Accountability Under New System

In addition to creating a new funding formula, the 2013–14 package of legislation establishes a set of new rules relating to school district transparency and accountability. Specifically, under the new rules, districts are required to adopt Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). Districts that do not meet the goals specified in their LCAPs and fail to improve educational outcomes are to receive assistance through a new system of support and intervention. We describe this new system in more detail below.

District Development and Adoption of LCAPs

Districts Must Set Annual Goals in Eight Specified Areas. Each LCAP must include a school district’s annual goals in each of the eight areas shown in Figure 7. These eight areas of specified state priorities are intended to encompass the key ingredients of high–quality educational programs. Figure 8 identifies how districts are to measure success in each of the eight areas, with districts required to include associated data in their LCAPs. The plans must include both district–wide goals and goals for each numerically significant student subgroup in the district. (To be numerically significant, a district must have at least 30 students in a subgroup, with the exception of foster youth, for which districts must have at least 15 students.) The student subgroups that must be addressed in the LCAPs are listed in Figure 9. (In addition to specified state priorities, districts’ LCAPs can include annual goals in self–selected areas of local priority.)

Districts Must Specify Actions They Will Take to Achieve Goals. A district’s LCAP must specify the actions the district plans to take to achieve its annual goals. The specified actions must be aligned with the school district’s adopted budget. For example, a school district could specify that it intends to provide tutors to all EL students reading below grade level to improve its EL reclassification rate. To ensure the LCAP and adopted budget were aligned, the school district would be required to include sufficient funding for EL tutors in its adopted budget plan.

Districts Must Use SBE–Adopted LCAP Template. In preparing their LCAP, districts are required to use a template developed by SBE. The template is intended to create consistency in LCAPs across the state and assist school districts in developing their plans. The SBE is required to adopt the LCAP template by March 31, 2014.

Districts Must Solicit Input From Various Stakeholders in Developing Plan. Figure 10 outlines the process a district must follow in adopting its LCAP. One of the main procedural requirements is that a district consults with its school employees, local bargaining units, parents, and students. As part of this consultation process, districts must present their proposed plans to a parent advisory committee and, in some cases, a separate EL parent advisory committee. (EL parent advisory committees are required only if ELs comprise at least 15 percent of the district’s enrollment and the district has at least 50 EL students.) The advisory committees can review and comment on the proposed plan. Districts must respond in writing to the comments of the advisory committees. Districts also are required to notify members of the public that they may submit written comments regarding the specific actions and expenditures proposed in the LCAP.

Board Highlights from 1/13/14 Meeting: OEA reports

 Video link to Board Meeting 1.13.2014
Charles Shannon, OEA President invited the School Board Members to the 2/8/14 CTA breakfast.

Employees of the Month: Mike Agers (OIS), Pam Chang IA (SH)

Minutes:  Trustee Butler requested that committee assignments be included in the minutes for the purpose of public transparency. Approved 3-2 (Trustees Krumholz, Butler and Severson approved).

This item was presented as the last item of the evening, however I have chosen to move it to the front of the minutes as it concerns OEA membership. (CS)

Under the PERS benefits “umbrella,” OUSD pays a lifetime $50.00 per month medical supplement to its retirees. About half the Contra Costa districts have these benefits. Loreen Farrell presented this information to the Board with the interest of ending the ongoing supplemen optiont via restructuring the districts benefits with PERS or a new provider. At this point it is unclear whether current retirees would be “grandfathered” and continue receiving the medical supplement. Trustee Moran expressed concern that lifetime benefits will eventually encroach on general fund.

A committee will be formed with OEA and management representation to study the issue. OEA has requested the option of selecting an outside expert who may assist all involved in making a sound decision. To be continued.

Annual Financial Audit Report by Cichella and Tokunaga

The accountants found that OUSD is compliant in its financial accounting as of the close of June, 2013. Available reserve should be at 3%. The auditor found that the school district has reserves of 20%. Report approved 5-0

Interdistrict Transfer Policies

Strustee Butler asked how many transfers accepted from 2012-2014

Employee requests:

2009 – 2010:  23 applied, 21 approved

2010 - 2011:  17 applied, all accepted

2011 – 2012: same as above

2012  - 2013: 15 applied, all accepted

2013 – 2014:  15 applied, all acceptd

Lottery process if more applicants than spaces available, however the lottery includes all requests (employee, locally employed, out-of-district)

Trustee Butler and Trustee Krumholz suggested that “random” (lottery) in ed code could be after a priority. Trustee Butler extensively researched districts in our county in terms of acceptance of employees’ children. Found many other districts to be more conducive.

OEA President pointed out that Pulte Homes has stated in its public documentation that priority will be given to those working in Orinda for a minimum of one year for consideration of below market rate homes. Why may that agency publicize its priority w/o concern for legal action?

An OIS teacher requested priority for teachers.

An OIS employee: out of district students who attend Miramonte are notified of acceptance in April and May and questioned why OUSD waits until the end of August to notify applicants of admittance or denial

Local citizen: asked about fiscal impact

Former student spoke in favor of priority

OIS teacher reminded the district that positive news reports about OUSD are preferable. Private schools recruit teachers at 5-year increments. Employees’ children attending school in OUSD is a strong incentive to remain.

Trustee Severson stated that the OUSD policy was legally challenged and that legal counsel for the district has recommended against any change in policy.

Trustee Butler pointed out that the legal challenge was about the Allen Act, not interdistrict transfer of employees’ children. Trustee Krumholz stated that because the interdistrict transfer has not previously been challenged he is less concerned about that possibility. He sees the opportunity as an amenity that will attract teachers to the district. Trustee Rossiter spoke in favor of the AcalanesUHSD policy where employees’ children are given priority. Trustee Severson, as Board President requested that more legal detail be provided and recognized the Board consensus is for employee support if possible. Dr Jaconette spoke to his concern about possible liability for the district. He also noted that the CCCOE often finds in favor of the child during a transfer appeal.

Common Core Funds designations:

Instructional materials increased from 9% to 19% ($94,345.00)

Staff Development increased from 32% to 49% ($245,860.00)

Technnology reduced from 59% to 32%  ($159,750.00)

CCF is a one-time funds and the allocation is based on enrollment. The aportionment is for two years and must be spent by July 2015.

Technology $ reduction will be supported via Pulte facities funds.

Bandwidth will be a general fund expense; $34,000.00 per year

The OEA Prsident and VP thanked Mrs. Marshall for revisiting and adjusting the percentages for expenditures and emphasized the significant efforts of the district teachers who are creating their own CC transition materials.

Board approved 5-0

 Mr Silvas recommended that the district bandwidth be increased from 100MB to 200MB for the district office at the cost of $22,228.56. Bandwidth is equally available to all school sites, where bandwidth is currently 50MB and will increase to 100MB. Board approved 5-0

Energy planning for the district: use Prop 39, solar and energy efficiency funds

Newcomb, Anderson and McCormick Company

Energy planning, energy efficiency, and solar = $69,970.00

W/o solar = $41,775.00.  Approved total contract 5-0

RGM  Assoc. Project Management

Mr. Silvas recommended RGM, a company that has provided past positive service to OUSD. The purpose is to use the company to manage the Facilities Priority List.

$523,500.  –  close to $700,000. Projects are expected to take more than one year to complete.  Trustees expressed concern about cost although consider $130.00 per hour for a project manager as a fair rate. Trustee Krumholz pointed out that the amertization equals a full time employee for two years. Approved rate structure 5-0.

Will later approve contract.

Corovan Moving

This company moved the DO to the current location. Mr. Silvas is recommending the same company to move to new district office location: $8,060.38

Approved 4-1 abstention

Mr. Inglesby recommended Goldbook, an online tool that enables a teacher to view student profiles for IEP students and create a differentiated goal with tools and resources to achieve that goal. Goals are measured 3-4 times per year. The program correlates to elec. IEP docs. Goldbook was piloted this fall. Mr. Inglesby reported a positive response from teachers who used the program. Common Core funds can support the adoption purchase.

Approved 5-0

Portables (discussion item): the Board reuested information about costs to buy out the current 14 leased portables and also the cost to replace 31 portables throughout district.

American Modular Gen 7 portables are highly sustainable, energy efficient and meet CHPS and LEED standards for Green Schools. Installed on a 5” slab foundation with steel frame and meet CA seismic regulation. 14 leased = $4,081,200.00.

17 owned = $6,156,000. Solar may be an option on rooftops. There is interest by the Board to improve the portables’ quality in the district. Cost is a significant factor. Discussion to be continued.

Board reports:

Trustee Butler: Advocacy Day meetings

Trustee Severson: bus report

Superintendent Report: complimented business office re: audit, 1/22 state budet meeting at CCCOE

Trustee Butler suggested reviewing school climate/discipline at school sites and requested information about principal’s evaluations

Respectfully submitted by,

Colleen Sullivan

OEA VP

Governor's proposed budget includes $10 billion in new funding for schools

Governor Jerry Brown released his 2014-15 state budget proposal. In it he proposed $10 billion in new funding for K-12 schools and community colleges, which includes $6 billion to eliminate all deferral payments to local school districts and colleges, as well $244 million for CSU and UC systems of higher education.  This is definitely a welcome change from the deficits of our recent past. The state surplus was made possible by all of your hard work to pass Proposition 30 during the 2012 election. This is the second budget period since its passing that funding cuts for schools hasn't been proposed.

Common Core Implementation Funds

Jan 14th OUSD Board Meeting Agenda Item information on CCIF

School districts and charter schools this fall will receive substantial money they didn’t foresee coming their way a few months ago to prepare for the Common Core standards. The catch: They first have to tell the public how they plan to use it.

The state budget that Gov. Jerry Brown is poised to sign includes $1.25 billion – about $200 per student, based on 2012-13 enrollment – for schools to transition to a new set of English language arts and math standards that students will be tested on in spring 2015. Pressed by districts needing all the help they can get, Brown added $1 billion in his revised budget in May for the new standards, and legislative leaders negotiated an additional 25 percent – $250 million – in the budget awaiting Brown’s signature this week.

“This is a strong indicator that the governor and Legislature will help districts be successful in the shift to Common Core,” said Assembly member Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, who, as chair of the education subcommittee of the Assembly Budget Committee, fought for additional Common Core money. Districts also have other sources of money they can direct to Common Core: federal Title I money for low-income children, as well as Title II, targeted for principal and teacher training, and extra money they’ll be getting this Fall under the new Local Control Funding Formula.

The trailer bill, spelling out details in the budget, gives districts latitude to spend the $1.25 billion on teacher training, textbooks and materials and technology. The latter is needed for districts to offer the online, standardized Common Core tests and to begin the shift to digital learning.

“We wanted to keep flexibility, because there are all levels of readiness in the state. Some are ahead of the curve,” said Bonilla.

Districts will be able obtain the money in two installments, in September and then November. But first they must create a plan for it and hold two hearings: the first to present the proposal to the public, the second to vote on it. This will be sort of a trial run for the accountability plan that districts will have to write, starting in 2014, under the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), giving districts more flexibility to spend state education money.

California Now Ranks 49th in the Nation in K-12 Spending...

• Adjusted per-pupil expenditures of $8,482, well below the national average of $11,824
• Last year, California ranked 47th
• Source: EdSource, click here

What is the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)?

Below are links to a short video in English and Spanish explaining what the Local Control Funding Formula does, and why the formula works they way it does.

Local Control Funding Formula English

La Fórmula de Financiamiento de C

    

How Education is Funded in California

• California schools today receive the large majority of their funding from the State, primarily from income and sales tax revenues, but also from local property taxes that are collected at the local level but distributed by the State.  
• By their nature, income and sales taxes are more volatile revenue sources than property taxes.  California school districts therefore face dramatic cyclical funding variations as the economy rises and falls.
• Further, California's Governor and State Legislature, whose vote on the State Budget Act determines how State funds may be spent, have enormous control over the ability of local school districts to utilize funding to meet the specific needs of their students.
• It is estimated that approximately 60% of all school district funds in California are general purpose in nature; the remaining 40% are restricted to specific purposes, such as the needs of special education students, low income students, limited English-proficient students, and specific grade levels.  This greatly constrains local boards of education in their spending decisions.
• They are further constrained in their ability to raise taxes independently of the State.  Bond issues, usually limited to building programs, require a 55% vote for passage; parcel tax measures require a 2/3 vote.

History of California Education Laws and Court Orders

Serrano v Priest (1971):
The California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest ruled education a fundamental constitutional right.  The ruling challenged the traditional method of locally funding schools which resulted in wealth-based disparities throughout school districts in the state.

SB 90 (1972):
In response to the Serrano case, in 1972, the state legislature established the current revenue limit scheme composed of state aid and local property taxes to bring about statewide parity among districts. It established the base finance amount for all districts to ensure districts were within $100 per pupil of each other. It was the first time since 1910 that the state reversed course on having a limited role in education financing.

Serrano v Priest II (1976):
The California Supreme Court found that the state’s education finance scheme (based on local revenue generated by the value of property) violated the equal protection clause of the California constitution. It resulted in the Supreme Court requiring the state to reduce funding disparities among districts within $100 per pupil.

Proposition 13 (1978):
Proposition 13 limited local property taxes to 2% annual increases based on value of property and capped taxes on property purchased after 1979 to 1% of the purchased value. An important feature in this initiative was that it required all parcel tax measures to pass with a 2/3rds vote.

For more information click here.

AB 8 (1979):
Although Proposition 13 was a boon to property owners, the loss of revenue to localities and districts was staggering. It resulted in a 50% loss in revenue to both cities and school districts. The state passed legislation that shifted the majority of tax dollars to local governments and created a new state fund to support schools that had lost property tax dollars.

For more information click here.

Authorization of the State Lottery (1984):
Voters approved the establishment of the California Lottery. It provided a guarantee of 34% of all collected funds to be distributed to k-12 schools, colleges and universities throughout the state. These funds can only be used for instructional purposes and are restricted from being used for non-instructional purposes, i.e. real estate acquisition, facilities maintenance, administration, etc.

For more information click here.

Proposition 98 (1988):
Voters approved Proposition 98 in November 1988 and amended in June of 1990 by Proposition 111. It provides a minimum funding guarantee (~40% of the state’s General Fund expenditures) for school districts, community college districts, and other state agencies that provide direct elementary and secondary instructional programs for kindergarten through grade 14 (K–14). The guarantee varies from year to year and changes throughout the year from the Governor’s initial proposal to when the budget is finalized based on April/May tax receipts.

For more information click here.