Schools May Still Suffer Under New Budget : Education: Under Wilson’s plan, per-pupil spending could drop, analysts say. And there is little money to improve classroom instruction.
As they sift through the fine print in Gov. Pete Wilson’s 1992-93 budget proposal, public school officials are finding the spending plan less attractive than it first appeared.
While pleased that the governor has provided more money for schools next year than this--7.9% more, according to the Administration; 5.9% to 6.4% more, according to other analysts--educators point out that most of the money will go to pay for rapidly increasing enrollments. There is very little new money to improve what generally has been viewed as the steady deterioration of the state’s elementary and secondary school systems.
A key indicator--expenditures per student--will increase little, if at all, if the governor’s budget becomes law.
The budget provides $5,287 for each student from kindergarten through 12th grade, an increase of $213, or 4.2%, over the current year. But when inflation is factored in, the increase is only $45 per student, or 0.86%, an analysis by the Assembly Ways and Means Committee staff concluded.
Some even think that that slim gain is questionable.
Several budget analysts pointed out that the $5,287 figure includes federal, state and local money. When state funds alone are counted (two-thirds of the total), per-student spending is probably going to decline.
“We are pretty certain that when inflation is included, state spending per student will be lower next year than this,” said James Wilson, a state Department of Education fiscal specialist.
That means California will continue to lag behind most large industrial states in per-capita spending for public schools.
In the 1988-89 school year, California ranked 23rd, behind New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Pennsylvania, according to the most recent survey by the National Education Assn.
The NEA study also found that California tied with Florida for 46th place in the nation in percentage of personal income devoted to public schools. Only Hawaii, New Hampshire, Illinois and Nevada trailed.
However, California may not fall much lower nationally next year because many other states also have cut education spending because of the ravages of recession.
More than half of the $1.6-billion increase that Wilson has proposed for schools next year--$864 million--would pay for an expected enrollment increase of 210,000 students.
Another $324.5 million would provide for a 1.5% cost-of-living increase. Although this is an improvement over the current year, when schools received no funds to keep up with inflation, it falls at least 2% short of next year’s expected inflation rate. For many school districts, the 1.5% increase will merely offset the cost of restoring payments to the Public Employees Retirement System, payments that were suspended for the current year.
For the hard-pressed Los Angeles Unified School District, which has cut more than $630 million from its operating budget in the last three years, the 1.5% cost-of-living increase offers small comfort.
“The impact on our district, in terms of new revenue, will be very slight,” said Henry Jones, budget director for the Los Angeles schools.
The governor’s budget proposes a $100-million increase in preventive programs: expanded preschool opportunities, an effort called “Healthy Start” to coordinate health and social services for needy children, and early mental health counseling, among others.
Of this $100 million, $71.7 million would come from the state general fund and the rest would be revenue from Proposition 99, which increased the cigarette tax.
Although school officials generally applauded the governor’s prevention measures, they pointed out that much of this money would be spent on statewide planning and other activities that would not offer direct assistance to schools.
The budget would provide increased funding for federal and state-mandated programs such as special education, desegregation, Gifted and Talented Education and a new statewide testing program.
It also calls for a $200-million reserve, twice as large as the reserve included for the rest of the state spending plan. However, if that money is not needed to pay for unexpectedly high enrollments or other unforeseen school emergencies, it could wind up in the state general fund.
After all these requirements have been met, the budget would provide little money for educational improvements.
According to the Ways and Means analysis, only 6.8% of the proposed spending plan would be used to improve the quality of instruction or to strengthen teaching.
After meeting all the commitments included in the budget, the state’s 1,010 school districts would be left with almost no discretionary money to spend.
“The real increase in spendable revenue is about $9 per ADA or 0.3%,” said Paul Goldfinger of School Services of California, a consulting firm. ADA refers to average daily attendance, which is the basis for state payments to school districts.
Most “high wealth” districts--those with strong local property tax support--will lose money under the Wilson budget proposal, while “low wealth” districts will be somewhat better off, Goldfinger said.
So Wilson’s school spending proposals, while better than they might have been in this year of economic gloom, have not caused educators to toss their hats in the air with glee.
“We’re thankful he (the governor) gave us the protection we got,” said state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig. “It could have been much worse. But this is still a bare-bones budget and most districts are still going to have to make cuts.”
School people are especially wary over several provisions of the proposed Wilson budget, including:
* Attendance counting. Because school districts are paid according to enrollment, the Administration is convinced that some are counting students who appear at school only fleetingly. The budget proposes a new counting system that would make sure each student attends a full school day.
The budget assumes that a more careful count would reduce average daily attendance by 47,000, costing the schools $100 million.
While acknowledging that “a greater effort should be made to know where kids are,” Jones, the Los Angeles school district’s budget director, said counting students in every class would be “cumbersome and very expensive.”
* Property tax transfers. The budget shifts $347 million in property taxes to schools from special districts. That would force hundreds of water, waste, harbor and airport agencies to raise their fees or cut their budgets.
Democratic Senate Leader David A. Roberti of Los Angeles and other legislators object to the switch. If the Legislature will not go along, “then they’ll have to find another $300 million or more in cuts someplace else,” Honig said.
* Concurrent enrollment. Department of Finance analysts contend that some school districts are counting high school students twice--as regular students and as adult education enrollees. They believe this practice is costing the state $60 million to $70 million a year. The Wilson budget seeks to reduce that amount next year.
School Funding
This chart shows how the proposed 1992-93 Wilson budget would allocate new spending for elementary and secondary schools. Nearly all the new money for schools would go to maintains the current levels of quality. Only 6.8% is money dedicated to educational improvement.
CATEGORY: Basic Funding Increase (including enrollment increase, cost-of-living adjustment and reserve fund)
IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS: $1,375,500 (86%)
CATEGORY: Governor’s “Preventive” Programs (including funds for health checkups)
IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS: $71,700 (4.5%)
CATEGORY: Meeting Special Student Needs (including summer schools)
IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS: $43,297 (2.7%)
CATEGORY: Improving Instructional Quality (including textbooks and training)
IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS: $109,082 (6.8%)
Total: $1,599,579 (100%)
SOURCE: Assembly Ways and Means Committee
