Institutional history is an integral component to any organization. It reflects the collective knowledge, experience and understanding gained over time. Institutional history helps to inform and guide policy, affects how programs and funding are instituted and assures that fidelity to the intent of laws and funding are fulfilled.
Term-limit reform has helped to stabilize the amount of time state legislators can serve. Proposition 28 permits a person to serve up to 12 years total in either house. This has resulted in many state legislators serving longer, helping to stabilize staff turnover and, most importantly, helping to contribute to more consistency in state policy and funding.
Since the pandemic, however, the Legislature has seen an exodus of assemblymembers and senators who have decided not to run for re-election, resigned from office or pursued other elected office. In 2022, more than one-third of the Assembly and nearly a quarter of the Senate left office for the aforementioned reasons. With the coming 2024 elections, both houses will continue to see substantial turnover. Gone will be those who voted on the importance of moving from an antiquated education funding formula that heavily favored competitive program grants, known as “revenue limits,” to an equity-based weighted funding formula with LCFF. Many of the soon-to-be-elected state legislators may have less understanding and awareness of why the change to LCFF was needed.
Based on equity, transparency, accountability and local governing board authority, LCFF transformed the distribution of funding to local educational agencies in a manner that grants communities greater autonomy to customize education program offerings in purposeful ways. It also provides additional funds for students who are English learners, foster youth and from low-income families.
LCFF was designed to direct additional funds to LEAs with large high-need student populations and, as a result of significant investments in the last two budgets, it has moved closer toward that goal. Greater effort is needed to raise overall base funding levels and to make sure that all high-need students, regardless of location, are receiving the necessary support. The promise of LCFF has yet to be fulfilled, but it will only be realized if the state avoids the temptation to undermine local control with unfunded or poorly funded state mandates.
LCFF continues to face challenges and CSBA has and continues to advocate for its protection and full funding. From increasing investments in the LCFF base to improved and consistent authority for LEAs to determine how to allocate their funding locally, there remains much that needs to be done. Yet, the circumstances that have helped with its implementation in its first 10 years are facing new challenges. As longer-serving legislators are replaced with newly elected ones, the Legislature’s institutional memory is beginning to dissipate.
This cannot be more evident than in the explosion of categorical programs created during the pandemic. From the establishment of the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program to the Community Schools Grant Program, local education leaders have seen the state approve the redirection of substantial amounts of Proposition 98 dollars to categorical grants once again, instead of being allocated directly into LCFF base grant calculations. Although credible and important programs, investment in these programs has resulted in less investment in LCFF.
It has never been more necessary for school board members and local education leaders to share why and how LCFF is important to public education. Helping state legislators understand why LCFF is critical to public education will help to re-establish the institutional history that is sorely needed for today’s and future legislators.
For a full history of how LCFF came to be, including the key involvement of CSBA, see the article in the spring issue of California Schools magazine, “A decade of LCFF.”