MONEY TALK THE PROBLEM: As we all know, California is in a budget crisis. Education funding is being drastically cut. (California earned the dubious ranking of 47th in the nation in per-pupil spending long before the state enacted a crushing $11.6 billion in cuts to public schools. With this latest round of cuts, there’s little question that California now ranks dead last in the nation in per-pupil funding.)
The State Budget Impact on Adult Education Ernest Kettenring, Chair, United Teachers Los Angeles Adult Education Committee (Revised 3-11-09)http://www.aeutla.net/docs/Adult%20Ed%20Budget%203-09.pdf http://www.aeutla.net/docs/LAO%20Report%20Education%20Budget%202-09.pdf
http://www.aeutla.net/docs/Funding%20Adult%20Education.pdf The Alert: As part of California’s Budget compromise, Adult Ed will lose 15.4% of the money we earned for THIS year, and another 4.5% of money we earn now for the next four years!
Adult Ed $$$$ - HOW IT WORKS Adult Ed Funding 101: Our main money, the state funds, are generated by attendance (average daily attendance -- ADA). 525 hours of seat-time (one student in class for one hour) equals ONE ADA. The state gives us money based on our ADA, times a number called the Revenue Limit (see below) (08-09= $2,645.30 per ADA) The state is reducing the Revenue Limit retroactively to $2,237.92 Spending (staffing) has to be cut to accommodate this. But Wait, There’s More... The Revenue Limit will be reduced even more for the ADA we earn THIS year. ($2,137.21 x ADA to run the school next year). And...the state hasn’t finalized how all the cuts will be implemented. TO REPEAT: ADA $$$ by the Numbers 1 ADA = 525 hours (student seat-time) Revenue Limit in 07-08: = $2,645.30 New Revenue Limit (15.4% reduction) = $2,237.92 Next Year’s Revenue Limit (4.5% further reduction) = $2,137.21 The state is fine-tuning the process for calculation our funds for 2008-09. HOW SCHOOLS GET THEIR MONEY: REVENUE LIMITS EXPLAINED: The state implemented "revenue limits" (how much each school district receives per student) in 1973-74 to address disparities in school funding. Prior to the establishment of revenue limits, schools were financed largely with property tax rates imposed by local school districts.Variations in the value of taxable property among districts resulted in significant disparities in per pupil property tax revenues. Disparities arose because districts with high property values could raise more money from the same property tax rate than could ones with lower property values. These disparities were particularly large prior to the passage of Proposition 13 of 1978, when properties were annually reassessed to full market value for tax purposes. SB 90 (Dills, Chapter 1406 of 1972), and subsequent legislation enacted in the wake of the 1971 California Supreme Court decision in Serrano v. Priest, addressed the court’s directive to reduce school funding disparities. The result was the establishment of a revenue limit funding formula that limited the amount of state and local revenue schools could receive for general purposes and constrained revenue growth in high-revenue school districts. The formula used to calculate each district’s revenue limit included an annual inflation-adjustment based on a district’s level of revenue. While the formula allowed for annual revenue increases for all districts, it restricted the revenue limit growth rate of high-revenue districts. Districts with lower revenues received larger increases in order to “level up” funding, while districts with high revenues received smaller adjustments in order to gradually “level down” funding. In addition to a district’s historical spending patterns, several other variables determine a district’s revenue limit, including its type (elementary, high school, or unifi ed) and size (small or large). IT DIDN'T WORK. Despite the effort to equalize funding between high- and low-wealth school districts, signi ficant disparities remain. For example, in 2006-07, the Palo Alto Unified School District received $8,774 per student in revenue limit funding, which was approximately one-third more than the Alameda City Unified School District received ($5,648 per student).Funding for revenue limits come from two sources: local property taxes and the state. The amount of revenue limit funding a school district receives from each source depends on the amount of money the district receives from local property tax revenues. If a district’s local property tax revenues are less than its revenue limit, the state makes up the difference. Some districts raise a larger share of revenue limit funds from local property taxes than others. For example, in 2006-07, the Palo Alto Unifi ed School District raised nearly all (98.0 percent) of its revenue limit funds from local property taxes. In contrast, the Alameda City Unified School District received approximately two-thirds (65.6 percent) of its revenue limit funds from the state in the same year. While Palo Alto and Alameda City are both unified districts of similar size, the amount and share of revenue limit funding they receive from the state varies as it does for other districts. School districts that raise all of their revenue limit funds from property tax revenues are known as “basic aid” districts and tend to be located in high property value, high-wealth districts. Basic aid districts are allowed to keep property tax revenues in excess of their respective revenue limits and also receive other state funds for specific programs. In 2007-08, 98 of the state’s 973 school districts (10.1 percent) were basic aid (high property value) districts. http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/090202_SFF_HowSchoolsGetTheirMoney.pdfAs part of the budget agreement, six ballot measures have been placed on a statewide special election ballot for Thursday, May 19, 2009. They are:
The first three measures – Propositions 1A, 1B and 1C – have direct implications for education. Two others, Proposition 1D and 1E, have a direct impact on the budget, but only an indirect impact on K-12 schools.  Dire economic circumstances are forcing the state and our own school districts to implement drastic budget cuts. Ironically, adult education is in particular jeopardy at a time when the need for the unique safety net that it provides is at its peak.
There are large gaps in our communities between the haves and the have nots— those who are educated and grounded and those who feel powerless and voiceless. Poverty, unemployment and illiteracy are reaching an all-time, frightening high, and the have-nots are becoming an increasingly large group. They are becoming the norm in many areas, where many have lost meager jobs and cannot compete for the few jobs that are available. We must remember that these adults are often the parents of our k-12 school children—the heart of the family. This is a group we cannot afford to ignore.
Adult Schools historically have been and continue to be uniquely equipped and primed to help the diverse, disadvantaged population in our communities. We respond quickly and flexibly to meet needs with lean fiscal efficiency. We provide a safety net for those who are not academically ready to enter the community college or the workplace. We offer short-term, effective training and can retool at a moment’s notice.
Adult Education is an integral part of California's K-12 program. California has one of the largest immigrant populations in the nation. Adult Education trains these students through our extensive ESL programs. We hold classes for a diverse population that includes parents, high-risk youth, concurrent high school students, high school drop outs, GED students, senior citizens, adults with disabilities, limited English proficiency adults, those seeking citizenship, and those displaced from the workforce.
We serve millions of individuals annually utilizing thousands of sites including classes at neighborhood schools. We are pro’s at economizing and making do with what we have. Over and over, we have maximized the use of available funds to provide a bridge for all of the under-educated in our community. California cannot afford to let the crucial services that Adult Education provides slip away. We do it more effectively and more economically than any other educational institution in the area, including community college.
A budget cut is anticipated, and adult education programs will carry a portion of the burden. However, if our funding is substantially reduced, the effects on our student population—many of whom are the parents of our K-12 children—will be devastating. It will be very difficult for us to continue providing the wide variety of community support so desperately needed—support which no other institution (including community college) is able to provide, and the price that we will ultimately pay as a state will be huge.
Campaign for Increased Adult Education Funding-FY10
We have reached the critical point in our advocacy work with the new political alignment and process in Washington. The opportunity is within our reach to move adult education to the forefront in the policy and funding discussions on the national level. This alert asks all of us to mobilize our field to the degree that we achieved four years ago when we restored $363 million in proposed cuts to our programs. Our advocacy experience over the past four years has laid the groundwork for our effort in the next few weeks.
President Obama will send his Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposal to Congress on April 21, 2009. Efforts have already started in Congress to prepare the Congressional response to the President's budget and we are part of that effort with our work on the Grijalva Dear Colleague letter.
The key to our work at this time is a massive campaign which carries the message of increased federal support for adult education to all members of the US House and Senate. We will be successful only if WE INVOLVE STUDENTS in this action.
The strategy for our current work is to have as many people as possible, the goal is 500 contacts per Congressional district and 5,000 for each Senator in thelarger states contact their Member of the House and two Senators with the message to increase funding for adult education in the FY10 appropriation bill. The goal of the campaign is an increase to $750 million. This figure can be the included in any contacts, but contacts that simply ask for an increase in adult education funding are also acceptable.
There are a variety of ways for our networks to make these contacts: Letters that are faxed or emailed to the Washington offices are appropriate.
The most powerful student letters focus on:
their plans after they graduate and
The request for CONTINUED FEDERAL funding or an increase to $750 million.
It is also appropriate to make the contact over the telephone with the appropriate Washington office. Callers should identify themselves as a student, staff, or friend of adult education and make the request for additional funding. Remember that all contacts for members of the House should only come from residents of that Congressional district.
All of the Washington websites of members of Congress allow constituents to post a message to their attention. This is a great way to make the contact.
The easiest way to access the two sites is to reach your Congress person is to click on the following site: (https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml) and click on (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm) for US Senators.
Both of those websites will allow you to click onto the individual members' pages, and then you will find a "Contact your Member of Congress" link in which you can type the message. To find your California state representatives, click on the following link: http://192.234.213.69/smapsearch/framepage.asphttp://192.234.213.69/smapsearch/framepage.asp and fill in your address.Click over to your representatives' websites and you can write to them there. Let your California representative know:
CCAE
 (State Advocacy Organization for Adult Education)
The Governor’s program for categorical flexibility would give local districts the authority to transfer the funds from any categorical program to each local school district general fund without having to comply with the statutory requirements of the specific program. Under the Governor’s proposal, the statutory requirements would be permanently eliminated. Given the impacts of cutting the revenue limit in the middle of the school year and making additional cuts in 2009-10, the administration believes that allowing local governing boards to make decisions about program priorities is the best way to help districts balance their budgets. Maintain Core Programs That Serve At-Risk, Poor & English Learner Students CCAE is sympathetic to the impacts of the budget cuts on local district budget. However, the organization believes that that adequate flexibility can be achieved without eliminating the programs that focus on the most needy students in each school district. As the current budget battle continues, CCAE understands the need to provide unprecedented budget flexibility for school districts in the current and budget years. The budget cuts being proposed, and those that have already been made including the elimination of the 2008-09 COLA, place school district budgets in jeopardy. For this reason, CCAE supports most of the categorical program flexibility proposal being offered in the Governor’s budget package. However, CCAE believes that there are several categorical programs that are focused entirely on the needs of K – adult students that are at-risk of not passing core programs, are poor or are English language learners. As a result CCAE would support a modified version of the Governor’s categorical flexibility plan that would maintain the categorical programs in the following program areas: Economic Impact Aid (EIA)
services for educationally (low income) disadvantaged students and bilingual education services for English language learners
Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG)
funding to previous participants in court ordered desegregation and voluntary integration programs to support court-orders still in force and to provide instructional improvement for low achieving pupils
Adult Education Revenue Limit Funding
Pupil Retention Block Grant
English Language Learner programs
Adult Education Provides Core Services to At-Risk and English Learner Populations Adult education is an integral part of the overall K – adult academic program and is one of the programs that provide academic services to adults that are English language learners and those working to improve their academic skills in order to find a job or to advance to a higher paying career. Additionally, adult courses help high school students that have fallen behind to graduate on time with their class. Additionally, adult education provides core programs such as Adult Basic Education, GED, English as a Second Language and citizenship and job retraining. These programs provide basic skills and English language acquisition skills needed for adults to get high quality jobs or to improve their existing job skills. There is also evidence of a direct correlation between parents that acquire these skills and the success of their K-12 students.Need For Adult Education to Contribute to Budget Reduction Solutions Given the size of the shortfall in both the current and budget year, CCAE understands the need for flexibility at the local school district level. For these reasons CCAE would suggest that instead of allowing for the adult education apportionment to be diverted to a local school district general fund, that the Legislature consider allowing the following funding sources to be used to help off-set the proposed budget cuts: Annual 2.5% Growth – Each year the adult education fund grows by 2.5 percent and allows local programs to offer services to additional adults in the community. Growth funding for 2008-09 is approximately $18.5 million. Adult Education Reserves – Under current statute, funds placed in adult education reserve accounts are restricted and cannot be used by the district for general fund purposes. We would support the use of a percentage of any reserve funds for purposes of backfilling any reduction to the district’s revenue limit on a one-time basis current and budget year only. AB 23 Redistribution – Under current law, a percentage of the units of ADA not earned by adult programs in any year are available to be redistributed to other adult programs that have exceeded their district’s adult cap. We would support allowing these unused units to be transferred to the State general fund through the 2009-10 fiscal year. For 2006-07, the amount of funds redistributed totaled $17.3 million. Summary CCAE realizes that the current budget shortfall is unprecedented and that there is a need to offset these cuts at the local school district level. The organization has suggested several areas where adult education funds can be redirected. However, CCAE strongly supports the maintenance of the most critical programs that benefit at-risk, poor and students that are English learners. These include EIA, Adult Education, TIIG, Pupil Retention Block Grant and programs for EL students.
|