The Local Control Funding Formula — championed by Gov. Jerry Brown as “truly revolutionary” at its signing ceremony — was supposed to give additional funding to districts to directly help each student they had who was an English learner, a foster child or from an impoverished household. But the Legislative Analyst’s Office warned in January that none of the 50 state school districts it surveyed, starting with Los Angeles Unified, had adequate safeguards in place. Many districts are using the extra dollars for general operations or to pay for raises for teachers.

Now the state Department of Education has issued guidelines in response to an inquiry from Fresno Unified about whether LCFF dollars can go to teacher raises. In an April 14 memo that received no attention until it was obtained by the EdSource website last week, Jeff Breshears, administrator for the Department of Education’s Local Agency Systems Support Office, wrote:

You have asked under what circumstances is it permissible to use “supplemental and concentration funds” to fund a percentage salary increase on a district salary schedule for all teachers in a district. As you describe this salary increase, it appears to be a straightforward across the board salary increase without any condition for additional or enhanced level of service. In such case, a district is essentially “paying more” for the same level of service. As a general proposition, such an increase will not “increase” or “improve” services for unduplicated pupils, and the use of supplemental and concentration funds in this manner would not be appropriate.

CTA says there are few restrictions on funds

This sets the stage for battles in school boards, the courts and the Legislature. The Department of Education’s position that LCFF dollars must be used in a targeted way appears to contradict the actions of dozens of school districts, according to the LAO and published reports from around the state. Those district actions have already drawn concern from the caucus of African American lawmakers in Sacramento. At a January hearing of the state Board of Education, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, testified on behalf of the caucus over fears the reform was not being implemented properly.

Weber has already clashed with the California Teachers Association and its allies over teacher tenure. An LCFF fight looks to be next. EdSource reports that the union thinks there are few restrictions on how the extra dollars can be spent:

The California Teachers Association interprets the law differently. The Local Control Funding Formula was created to give maximum flexibility to school districts, and that includes creating competitive salaries to reduce teacher turnover, said Claudia Briggs, communications assistant manager for the CTA.

 

“We believe the law is clear: The money can be used to attract and retain quality teachers in the classroom, to lower class sizes and to restore programs that were cut,” said Briggs.

That is not how the governor described the LCFF when lobbying for its passage in spring 2013. In the press release from his office after he signed the law, Brown declared it would “direct increased resources to the state’s neediest students” — not to general operating funds.

However, Brown has said little about the controversy over the law’s implementation. Nor has Tom Torlakson, state superintendent of public instruction.

But education reformers warned that pent-up demand for raises from powerful local teacher unions could lead school boards and superintendents to divert LCFF dollars to compensation.

The LAO report doesn’t come out and say that is what is happening. Instead, it implies many districts appear to be going through the motions and trying to create the appearance of compliance.

The whole point of the law, remember, is to provide direct, tangible, quantifiable additional assistance to English learners and struggling students. That this intent is not being honored is plain in two of the LAO’s key conclusions:

Districts Rarely Differentiate Between New and Ongoing Actions. In most LCAPs, we found that districts are not distinguishing between actions that are a continuation of efforts from the prior year and those that are new for the upcoming school year. Without such differentiation, we could not determine whether districts were using the new funding generated under LCFF to pursue new actions to improve performance or to continue or expand prior activities.

Districts Often Fail To Provide Sufficient Information on EL/LI Student Services. Often, districts’ descriptions of services for EL/LI students consist only of recapping the actions they will pursue on behalf of all students and indicating those actions also will benefit EL/LI students. In addition, few districts provide clear or compelling rationales for using their supplemental and concentration funds on a districtwide and schoolwide basis.

A reform? Or a disguised political favor?

This gets to a point that Cal Watchdog and nearly nobody else in the California media has made since the LCFF moved quickly through the Legislature to enactment two years ago. If this was the biggest change in state education policy in nearly 20 years — since classroom-size reduction agreed to by Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature — it was unlikely to pass without the tacit support of the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, the most powerful special interests both in the Capitol and in most cities around the state.

It is difficult to look at the failure of local school districts to properly account for LCFF dollars and not wonder if what was billed as reform was actually a way to do a disguised favor for the urban and Central Valley chapters of the CTA and CFT — the ones with the most English-language learners.

The LAO said that some of the 50 school districts it surveyed tried harder than others to meet the letter of state law with the funds. But how many of the 50 actually complied with the law’s requirements?

The LAO said not a one.