A large share of California's school funding is allocated through categorical programs whose funding is contingent on districts using the money in a particular way or for a particular purpose. In 2008–09, the strings were taken off 40 of these programs as part of a budget deal that also reduced the funding for those programs. This report describes statewide patterns in district revenues and expenditures in light of this new state policy.

Deregulating School Aid in California

Revenues and Expenditures in the Second Year of Categorical Flexibility

Jennifer Imazeki

ResearchPublished Jun 25, 2012

California's system of school finance is highly regulated and prescriptive. A large share of state funding is allocated through categorical programs; that is, programs whose funding is contingent on districts using the money in a particular way or for a particular purpose. In 2008–09, the strings were taken off 40 of those programs, collectively known as the "Tier 3" programs, as part of a budget deal that also reduced the funding for those programs. The author gathers evidence about how districts have responded to this fiscal freedom, particularly how resource allocations are made at the district level and what specific changes districts have made in their allocations. Although concerns have been raised that those districts with relatively more Tier 3 funding have been disproportionately affected by the state's budget crisis, the data show that districts with more Tier 3 funding lost a similar share of their budget as other districts (although that represents larger per-pupil dollar amounts). Furthermore, so far and on average, districts do not appear to be making large-scale changes in how they are spending their money.

Key Takeaways

Almost All Districts Have Lost Revenue over the Past Few Years; Districts with More Tier 3 Funding Lost a Similar Share of Their Total Budget as Other Districts

  • All districts have protected instructional personnel, special education, and pre-kindergarten.
  • Variation in how districts have responded to the budget cuts and the Tier 3 flexibility does not seem to be strongly correlated with any observable district characteristics.
  • The majority of Tier 3 funds are spent on direct instruction, with a slight shift toward personnel over other items.
  • Districts do not appear to be making large-scale changes in how they are spending their funds.

Districts with More Tier 3 Revenue per Pupil Spent Relatively More of That Revenue on Alternative Education, Adult Education, and Other Noninstructional Goals

  • They spent relatively less of their overall budgets on instructional personnel but relatively more of their total budget on pupil services and "all other" functions, possibly because they tend to have more students with higher needs (e.g., lower-performing, higher-poverty students), and they must devote more of their budgets to such pupil services such as counseling, health, and food.
  • They also seem to be somewhat more aggressive about maintaining special education.

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 2012
  • Pages: 70
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/pubs
  • Document Number: TR-1229/1-WFHF/DCKF/STF

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Imazeki, Jennifer, Deregulating School Aid in California: Revenues and Expenditures in the Second Year of Categorical Flexibility. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2012. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1229z1.html.
BibTeX RIS

The research described in this report was supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation, and the Stuart Foundation, and was conducted by PACE research network and RAND Education, a division of the RAND Corporation.

This publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.