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.

Cover: Deregulating School Aid in California
Read Online

Deregulating School Aid in California

Revenues and Expenditures in the Second Year of Categorical Flexibility

by Jennifer Imazeki

Download

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.5 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback70 pages $19.95 $15.96 20% Web Discount

Research Questions

  1. What are the statewide revenue and spending patterns for Tier 3 and stimulus funds?
  2. Which kinds of districts, schools and students benefit most from the flow of deregulated Tier 3 categorical aid and federal stimulus dollars?
  3. Do districts (and schools) with larger shares of Tier 3 and federal stimulus funding (as fractions of their overall budgets) spend relatively more or less on instruction and teaching staff, compared with districts that benefit less from these sources?

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 Findings

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.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Background

  • Chapter Three

    Data

  • Chapter Four

    Distribution of Revenue

  • Chapter Five

    Spending Priorities

  • Chapter Six

    Conclusion

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 report is part of the RAND Corporation Technical report series. RAND technical reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet 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.

The RAND Corporation 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.