State Crowding Formula Unfair to Many Urban Schools, Report Says

California vastly underestimates the extent of severe crowding in its public schools and leaves many urban districts ineligible for precious state building funds, according to a report released Wednesday by two advocacy groups.

The state says that about 1 million students attend “critically overcrowded schools,” but the report pegs the figure at more than 1.5 million -- a quarter of California’s public school enrollment.

The study, by the research group PolicyLink and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, faulted the state for using a narrow definition of overcrowding that fails to consider many schools, particularly those serving low-income and minority students.

The report also criticizes the state for making it difficult for districts with such schools to qualify for special state construction money.

California labels schools “critically overcrowded” if their enrollments exceed twice the density levels set by the state.

The researchers said the formula needs to incorporate other such indicators of crowding as whether schools must place students on staggered schedules or bus students to less crowded campuses.

“Having kids in overcrowded conditions over time has a cumulative effect on their ability to learn and be productive,” said Ray Colmenar,PolicyLink’s associate director and an author of the report. “Overcrowding does lead to lower academic achievement.”

State leaders defended the formula for identifying crowded schools, which was hammered out three years ago by the Legislature.

“I do believe that it was arrived at in good faith as a mechanism to determine overcrowded campuses,” said Kathleen Moore, director of the school facilities planning division for the state Department of Education and a member of a state board that allocates school construction funds.

“I do think that overcrowded schools continue to exist,” Moore said. “If there are ways that the regulations or the law have not addressed them, that information should be brought forward.”

Authors of the report credited the state with taking steps to address school overcrowding.

In 2002, the Legislature created the Critically Overcrowded Schools Program, which gave districts with severely crowded schools up to five years to apply for school construction funds -- a departure from the first-come, first-served policy that districts typically follow.

The crowded districts needed more time to apply for the money because it was often harder for them to find open land in dense, urban neighborhoods in which to build schools.

Meanwhile, state voters in 2002 and 2004 approved two school construction bonds that raised more than $21 billion to build and upgrade schools, including $4.1 billion dedicated to the critically overcrowded program.

Most of the $4.1 billion has been claimed.

Still, flaws remain in the school funding system that continue to hamper large urban districts from getting enough money to build more schools, critics said.

The state’s eligibility rules for doling out construction funds, for example, give priority to future growth over current crowded conditions, according to the researchers from MALDEF and PolicyLink.

To qualify for funding, school districts must project growth and then certify that their enrollments occurred several years later -- an easier proposition for suburban districts with abundant land and construction underway, Colmenar and others said.

In Los Angeles, district officials have relied heavily on state construction funds to help fund its ongoing $14-billion school building program.

Though Los Angeles officials said they welcomed the state aid, officials in other overcrowded districts in such cities as Long Beach and Glendale, said the eligibility requirements have created roadblocks to their efforts to relieve swollen campuses.

Several years ago, the Long Beach Unified School District applied for the Critically Overcrowded Schools funding to help build three schools that would serve 3,300 students.

At the time, the district qualified under the state’s eligibility requirements. Today, however, because enrollment projections in Long Beach schools dipped, the district no longer qualifies for the funds intended to alleviate overcrowding.

Even without guarantees of state funding, the district has no choice but to proceed with plans to purchase land for the schools and prepare them for construction -- an effort that can cost the district $25 million to $30 million for each school site, said Kevin Barre, the district’s facilities director.

“We’re just hoping that by the time we submit to the state, that the rules have changed, we’re growing again, or that we’ve found other ways to establish eligibility,” Barre said.

Dick White, assistant superintendent of facilities at the Santa Ana Unified School District, said Long Beach’s experience was common and provided further evidence that the state would have to alter its funding system for crowded districts.

“Urban school districts are at a disadvantage,” he said. “The state needs two forms of eligibility.

“Fast-growing districts in rural and suburban areas need the current system based on enrollment projections, but the system also needs to take into consideration urban districts that are already overcrowded,” White said.

The report’s focus on the number of students in overcrowded schools was welcomed among urban school officials in Southern California, who said it highlighted problems that had been little noticed outside their circles.

“This report says what I have felt for some time,” said Roy Romer, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

“The definitions of overcrowding were very carefully drawn and I think they need to be reexamined,” he said.

“I have the general impression that we have not yet fully understood the depth and seriousness of the overcrowding problem and how profoundly it affects student learning,” he said.