It’s been a packed two weeks for public schools. At the state level, a long-awaited, Stanford-based analysis of the condition and impact of California public school financing was released. At the City level, new and somewhat disconcerting movement is afoot regarding City supplied funding for schools (the ambiguously defined “third third of Proposition H).

Starting at the 10,000 foot level is the news from Stanford’s Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, which released a robust set of 23 rigorous studies regarding California’s public education finance and governance situation (http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm). These papers are collectively entitled “Getting Down to Facts: A Research Project Examining California’s School Governance and Finance Systems,” and represent hefty pieces of analysis that deserve careful reading on all of our parts.

Drawing on a deep and wide cadre of researchers from a variety of institutions, the work is organized around three primary questions:
1. What do California school finance and governance systems look like today?
2. How can we use the resources that we have more effectively to improve student outcomes?
3. To what extent are additional resources needed so that California’s students can meet the goals that we have for them?

Answers to these questions are what we have all been waiting for for so long. Anyone involved with public schools knows that the available resources making it down to the school site just aren’t adequate. But we also know that our schools and districts are hampered by restrictive categorical funding proposals, which frequently don’t support schools in needed areas, come with a variety of restrictions, and hamper down school administrators with even more time-consuming reporting requirements that are of doubtful usefulness. Further, we have not had a sense of how much we actually need to meet the standards that have been set for our children. These reports are the welcome starting points for grappling with these issues.

There is a lot to absorb here, even in the overview paper. Some of the main findings however, are that even though increased funding is required (yes, California is still below the national average just about any way you look at it), the dysfunction in the funding and governance is so extensive that simply increasing resources, will likely not result in widespread, systemic positive outcomes. This is sobering news indeed.

Turning the situation around will require not only more dollars, but commensurate changes in: how resources are provided, including a more equitable distribution of funding; which programs are implemented; the manner of program implementation and oversight; better analysis of the effects of programs and policies; an increase in local authority and greater relief from extreme regulatory requirements, especially at school sites; more ability for principals to reward teachers and to have greater flexibility in hiring teachers.

The IREPP studies provide an excellent foundation from which education supporters from parents to professional educators to policy makers can talk about concrete next steps in overhauling the way public education is structured in California. At a time when No Child Left Behind is both up for reauthorization and being heavily called into question, the timing may be perfect for such a complete reworking.

Somewhat ironically, this groundbreaking work regarding the need for more funding and rethinking of governance structures comes at the same time the City and the Board of Education and district staff are negotiating and debating over the now infamous “third third” of Proposition H monies. Proposition H was passed by voters several years ago to provide direct financial support from the City to fund: universal preschool; supplemental sports, library, art and music instruction; and unspecified public education related needs.

Prop H provides cash for these areas, but also includes language allowing for some of the contributions to come in the form of in-kind services instead. To date, the support has been mostly, if not all, in cash. Now, members of the Board of Supervisors are anxious for a chunk of the unspecified third third to be more substantially comprised of in-kind services. A figure of $2.5 million has been on the table (a bit over 10% of the total amount of the third-third), not for this year’s allocation but for next year’s.

Again, as all of those directly involved with public schools know, cash is where it’s at. We need dollars, desperately, and preferably dollars without lots of conditions and reporting requirements. So swapping in in-kind services for money, is not what we really hoped for or expected.

On the other hand, there are valuable in-kind services that the City could provide, everything from transportation to school or even for field trips, or as one parent has suggested, health care for staff. These are not insignificant contributions and could save the district money while allowing the City to live up to its bargain in a slightly less expensive way, which a rose-colored glasses reading of the situation says is what the Supervisors are hoping for.

The trick in all of this is making sure that those in-kind services are actually new services, not contributions made by pre-existing arrangements. And that’s where parents need to really speak up. City services that are provided to school children because they are residents of the City (for instance health care at clinics), should not count towards any Proposition H requirements. Our schools need additional resources, which is what voters intended they get when they passed Proposition H.
Proposition H monies are finally starting to make a difference at our schools.

We can’t let this great compact of support between the City and the district be weakened now. The task ahead of parents, and all public school supporters, is to let the Board of Supervisors know that while we understand that the City may find it preferable or even necessary to provide some of its Prop H contributions in services and not cash, those services must be new. Email your supervisor today and spread the word.

Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children who attend McKinley Elementary School in the San Francisco Unified School District and is a member of the board of directors of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco (http://www.ppssf.org).