Bill Richards

EDL 648--Legal and Fiscal Aspects of School Administration

Kenny Richards, Ed.D.
Eight Readings--School Finances and Special Education
April 30, 2017

1.Job Design: An Administrators Guide to Supporting and Retaining Special Educators by E.

Bettini, K. Cheyney, J. Wang, and C. Leko

The authors state that administrators play an essential role in supporting and retaining

special education teachers, and the article also provides a number of suggestions for

administrators practice based upon job characteristics theory.

The authors describe the challenge for administrators by pointing out that there has been

a long-term, national 10% shortage of special ed teachers, and half of new special educators

leave within the first four years of their careers. This shortfall and attrition leads to less

experienced teachers taking on leadership roles and the disruption of school reform efforts.

Fortunately, administrative support is one of the largest controllable influences on

attrition. Discussing Job Design, an area of research in organizational psychology, the authors

cite research suggesting that supervisors can create meaningful work environments for their

employees, which makes employees more effective and less likely to leave. The authors then

discuss a number of relevant job characteristics that affect employees perceptions of the

importance of their work:

Social Support: the extent to which an employee participates in supportive,

reciprocal relationships with colleagues. This characteristic is more highly correlated with

turnover intentions than any other characteristic. Of relevance to school administrators, special

educators who perceive administrators as supportive are more committed, more satisfied with
their jobs, and less likely to intend to leave. Administrators can cultivate collegial support by

including special educators in school social networks, creating time for collaboration among

special educators, and expressing interest in special educators as individuals.

Autonomy: is the degree to which teachers have control over their own work.

Administrators can support special educators by allowing them to use their specialized expertise

in support of their students, giving them wide latitude in how mandated standards may be taught,

and allowing special educators to determine the most effective ways to meet student goals and

school demands. Specifically, administrators can include special educators in decisions about

their work and trust special educators unique knowledge.

Feedback: ensures that autonomous actions align with school goals and provides

insights into how ones work contributes to meaningful outcomes. Feedback that is specific,

positive, corrective, and immediate is most effective. Administrators can meet with special

educators to discuss students progress and use formal evaluations to help teachers improve. In

addition, an administrator can ask the school psychologist to meet with special ed teachers if they

feel their knowledge of special ed is still developing.

Task Significance: refers to the perceptions of the importance of ones work.

Employees who perceive that their jobs are socially significant express more positive feelings

about their jobs, and teachers value task significance more than many other professionals. Task

significance is closely tied to feedback because feedback is how one knows how ones work

affects others. To increase task significance, administrators can practice ethical leadership,

which also enhances employee performance. Participatory decision making, including having
special ed teachers contribute to conversations beyond special ed, also enhances task

significance.

Task Interdependence: refers to the extent to which ones work affects and is

affected by others. Administrators can promote effective, mutual interdependence by cultivating

a balance of power and responsibility between collaborators, supporting shared responsibility

through collaborative professional learning, and by providing sufficient resources and planning

time for collaborators.

2.Task Force Unveils Plan to Overhaul Special Education by Jane Meredith Adams

The author discusses the 2014 report One System: Reforming Education to Serve All

Students by the Statewide Task Force on Special Education. In the wake of the LCFF, the

CCSS, and the CAASPP, the report argues that the crucial next step in education reform in

California is to dramatically improve education for students with disabilities, and the task force

calls for the greater integration of much of special education into the education system, including

teacher training, early interventions, and the use of evidence-based practices and data tracking.

Among other recommendations, the report states that special education teachers and

mainstream teachers should be trained together in language arts and reading interventions,

content standards, behavioral management and the use of data to monitor progress, and that

special educators will receive authorization to teach non-special ed students while special ed

aides will receive opportunities to become credentialed teachers. In addition, the report calls for

equalizing special ed funding across the state and having the state rather than the districts pick up

costs for preschool and young children with significant disabilities. The report also states that
early interventions would create savings in future costs, and that shorter term savings could come

from reducing the number of segregated special ed classrooms that require separate teachers and

pupil transportation. Importantly, the task force proposes that new or remodeled school facilities

be designed to allow special ed students to mingle with their age peers.

The report does not change the laws or the rights of students, but it would make changes

in how, when, and by whom special education services are provided.

Significantly, the article points out that the state has been out of compliance with federal

law for years in over-segregating special ed students in separate classrooms. The task force

states that California has done a poor job of educating students with disabilities, who now

represent one out of every 11 students in the state, and that the achievement levels of students

with disabilities in California are among the lowest in all 50 states.

The report argues that the challenge isnt knowing how to fix this problem, but in

knowing where and how to begin.

3.Governors Budget Summary--2017-2018

This summary discusses the overall school funding picture for 2017-1018 and its

relationship to the state general fund, Proposition 98, and the LCFF. The document also briefly

discusses a great variety of significant budget adjustments as well as the goal of maintaining core

investments in a number of specific areas.

The document summarizes a variety of ways that the state is working to maintain and

increase funding while also allocating the funding more equitably and with greater local control.

Against the background of working to make up for the strains placed upon schools due to the
recession, the Governors budget presents a number of details about the ways that funding is

calculated and apportioned while also noting, significantly, that expenses originally scheduled

for 2015-16 and 2016-17 will instead be paid at the beginning of 2017-18.

The significant areas that the summary discusses include an explanation of the LCFF, a

description of the new accountability system, special education, school facilities and Proposition

51, the teacher workforce and workforce development, K-12 spending and attendance,

Proposition 98, and childcare. These discussions of significant areas include a number of

highlights.

LCFF: In addition to describing the general structure of the LCFF, the Summary lists an

Economic Recovery Target which attempts to ensure that almost every LEA receives at least

their pre-recession funding.

New Accountability System: The Summary briefly refers to the LCAPs and how these

identify local goals for all students in eight state priorities and describe planned actions, services,

and expenditures to reach these goals. This method of accountabiliity is meant to promote equity

and highlight disparities among student groups as a way of serving the states commitment to the

highest need students and closing achievement gaps.

Special Education: The Summary refers to the complex patchwork of more than 20

programs for funding special ed and the Statewide Special Education Task Forces

recommendations to (a) provide special ed funding as part of the LCFF, (b) preserve

census-count methodologies for preserving funding while developing ways to distribute funding

more equitably, (c)eliminating the current requirement for LEAs to join SELPA, (d)ensuring

early education needs of children with disabilities.

 K-12 School Facilities:The Summary presents a brief discussion of statewide bond

money for facilities construction.

Teacher Workforce: The Summary discusses plans by the CTC to increase teacher

recruitment, provide four-year college study paths to getting a credential, create an online

dashboard of information, and align teacher and administrator standards and preparation to

match new content standards.

The Summarys discussion of Major K-12 Budget Adjustments reveals the great number

of exceptions and one-time state expenditures to support education during the transition out of

recession and the beginning years of the LCFF. Among many significant items here is the

ending of the current CTE funding, with the districts expected to support the full cost of CTE

programs under their LCFF allocations starting in 2018-2019.

4. Budgets in an Era of Local Control and Accountability: Tips for Leaders by Brett W.

McFadden

McFadden argues that though the implementation of the LCFF and the LCAPs have led

to a number of changes, the ways that administrators develop, implement, and lead their budgets

should be based upon a traditional set of best practices and core principles. These practices

include:

1.Big Picture Understanding: Administrators will need to be up to date with Federal and

state policy changes and be proficient with the ins and outs and regulations that come with a

variety of types of categorical funding.

 2.Understand the Budget-Making Process: Administrators must understand the budget

and fiscal oversight procedures. In addition, we must know the specific budget development,

adoption, and timelines used by our sites, districts, and county offices.

3. Ones Role: Administrators must understand their role in their organizations culture,

leadership, and local policies and practices as they address government statutes, accounting

standards, and board policies.

4.Keep Accurate Records: Administrators should keep their own spreadsheets of

revenues, expenditures, dates, and details because district financial systems can be cumbersome.

It is the administrators responsibility to stay in budget and manage responsibilities accordingly.

In addition, it is important to distinguish between one-time expenditures and on-going

commitments.

5.Excel at Budget Oversight: Administrators must make sure that every dollar counts

toward student achievement. We must make sure our fiscal and instructional actions match up,

and when actions change, we should memorialize the changes in writing to accompany the

budget. Site administrators need to keep the district office in the loop. In addition,

administrators need to be intense about serving the public interest as they oversee diverse funds

and programs.

6.Organize: Administrators must organize budgets and records for diverse programs and

understand the rules and reporting requirements for each. Site administrators should work with

district staff to develop one overall site budget that includes all funds and spending, and we

should be able to describe the basics of the site budget to stakeholders with relative ease.
 7.Factor in Personnel Costs: Personnel costs are the top expenditure, and when

organizing budgeting, administrators should take into account a number of factors, including:

total compensation, length of position, certification, funding source, job description,

management vs. labor position, reporting and accountability, and issues regarding layoff

notification, bumping, and other seniority requirements.

8.Make Allies of Fiscal and Human Resources Staff: One of the worst things that site

leaders can do is get the reputation for breaking the rules or being high-maintenance. Respect

the fiscal and human resource processes and understand them from procedural and interpersonal

perspectives.

In pursuit of student success, educational leaders need to have a baseline understanding

of the institutions budget, fiscal timelines, administrative processes, regulations, and oversight.

5.A Primer for Navigating School Finance and Accountability Reforms by Gina Potter

The author states that during this period of large policy shifts including funding (through

the LCFF), accountability (through the LCAP and Smarter Balanced tests), and standards

(through the Common Core State Standards), California policymakers have focused on five key

goals:

1.Ensuring equity and greater resources for students with greater needs, including EL

students, low-income students, and foster youth.

2.Local decision making.

3.Accountability.

4.Transparency regarding school budgeting.

 5.Aligning school budgets with an accountability plan.

The LCFF replaces the base revenue limit funding formula that also had more than 50

categories of restricted funds. The LCFF provides base grants, supplemenal grants, and

concentration grants. In addition, there is the GSA, a grade span adjustment program that

requires a phased in class size ratio of 24:1 by 2020-2021, and the categorically-funded programs

for transportation and the targeted instructional improvement grant are now called LCFF

add-ons.

There are a number of LCFF calculation tools to help districts budget their incomes, and

these calculators use data from CALPADS.

The state of California plans to fully fund the LCFF by 2020-2021, which would restore

education funding to the 2007-2008 levels. It is important to note that portions of the

Proposition 30 temporary education taxes were scheduled to expire in 2016 and 2018.

The LCAPs are required to focus on areas of involvement and transparency.

Transparency is to be fostered by the requirement that school boards consult with groups of

stakeholders regarding the LCAP. These stakeholder groups include teachers, principals, school

personnel, students, and local bargaining groups; in addition, the districts parent advisory

committee and English Language Acquisition Committee must be allowed to review and

comment on the LCAP. The LCAP process also requires a public hearing and concurrent

adoption with the budget.

LCAP goals must be based on student needs assessment and must address all eight state

LCAP priorities.
 Some sample needs assessments are: formative student assessment date like the

CAASPP, summative student assessment data, CELDT scores, the SARC, professional

development committee needs assessment, qualitative data from district and site community

forums, FIT, Healthy Kids Survey, physical fitness test, and parent/teacher surveys.

The eight state LCAP priorities are:

1.Basic services: highly-qualified teachers, safe facilities, curriculum materials

aligned to the standards.

2.Implementation of state standards.

3.Parent Involvement.

4.Student achievement.

5.Student engagement.

6.School climate.

7.Course access.

8.Other student outcomes.

This article also presents ten tips for developing a successful LCAP. The advice here

includes: making sure your CALPADS information is accurate; working with the county office

of ed; creating clear LCAP development and review timelines; including budget narratives

within the LCAP; considering aligning LCAP goals with existing LEA goals such as the strategic

plan, ELL plan, single plan for students achievement, the SARC, etc.; clearly identifying needs

from assessments and data; and establishing measurable and achievable LCAP goals.

It is important to note that districts receiving supplemental and concentration grant funds

must create additional LCAP goals for EL students, low income students, and foster youth.
 County superintendents are responsible for oversight and approval of district LCAPs, and

they must use three criteria: that the LCAP adheres to the SBE-approved template, the budget

includes expenditures sufficient to implement the actions and strategies in the LCAP, and the

LCAP adheres to expenditure requirements pursuant to Ed Code.

The article also presents circumstances under which the state superintendent may

intervene.

6.Putting Student Success at the Center of Planning and Budgeting by Samantha Tran

The author, a parent and school consultant, states that the LCFF gives local communities

the flexibility to innovate and respond to student needs, coupled with a commitment to investing

in our most vulnerable children. She argues that this flexibility and equity, combined with the

LCAP processs call for greater transparency, community engagement, and accountability, gives

schools the tools to create public trust.

The LCFF and LCAP create a structure for school boards to be more responsive to local

needs after decades of working in the compliance-oriented structure of the revenue limit system

of funding. The local plans are more directly connected to the school districts budget. The

author argues that the LCAP creates a unique opportunity to ensure that student success is at the

center of planning and budgeting. She also appreciates that the LCFF broadens the definition of

student success beyond test scores to include college and career readiness, conditions of learning,

school climate, and student engagement.

Writing in the fall of 2014, the author offers some specific advice:
 1.Not waiting until spring to have community input sessions. Schools can present clear

timelines for planning and budgeting that includes community involvement. These community

sessions can be used to review current LCAP plans other school and district plans.

2.Linking community engagement opportunities to the board budget cycle.

3.Exploring new engagement approaches, such as having civics classes study the history

and goals of the LCFF or have community groups step up to partner to train and support parents

so then can authentically engage in the process.

4.Erring on the side of transparency by making sure that parents and taxpayers have

access to information in easily digestible ways.

5.Make adjustments as necessary, and invest in what is working.

In addition, the author presents a number of questions that can help schools and the

community reflect on the LCAP and on what is working. These questions deal with the

effectiveness of the schools LCAP process itself, the appropriateness of the goals that have been

set for students and the school, the extext to which the budget reflects the goals of the LCAP, and

the aspects of how to move forward with collaboration among stakeholders.

7.Implementing Californias School Funding Formula: Will High-Need Students Benefit? by

L. Hill and I. Ugo

The authors point out some structural issues to address if Californias LCFF is to benefit

the high-needs students identified by the new funding formula: EL students, low-income

students, and foster youth.

 The problem that the authors identify deals with how much of the LCFFs concentration

grants will actually benefit the high needs students for whom they are intended. The problem

identified is that the concentration grants go to districts in which more than 55% of the students

are high needs, with these districts receiving funding equal to 50% of the base grant, but there

are a number of districts where the high needs students are unevenly distributed among the

schools within the district. The problem then is that the funds sent to a school district in the

form of a concentration grant may not make it to the schools that the high needs students attend.

The article presents data in regard to where high needs districts are located--primarily in

southern California. Most district LCAPs do not contain enough detailed information in regard

to spending and curriculum to indicated whether districts are adding services or spending

proportionally on high-need students, and it will be many years before we can assess the

effectiveness of district spending by examining student outcomes.

An additional problem that occurs is that individual schools that would qualify for

concentration funds if they were their own district sometimes are not slated to receive

concentration funds because they are in districts that do not qualify because the district as a

whole does not meet the 55% high-needs students criterion.

While Los Angeles Unifies School District plans to distribute its supplemental and

concentration grants according to individual schools unduplicated number of high needs

students, it is uncertain how other districts will handle this issue. This puts a higher

responsibility upon county offices of education to make sure that districts are proportionately

distributing these addition funds.

8.Districts Embrace Local Control But Struggle by Erin Brownfield

This article is a brief review of an SRI report from 2014, Toward a Grand Vision: Early

Implementation of Californias Local Control Funding Formula, which studies 10 districts

across the state. The article and study are dealing with the initial attempts of school districts to

implement the LCFF, and they cite some difficulties that the districts found in adjusting to the

new plan.

District leaders at that time cited problems adjusting that included lack of time,

information, skills, and resources. Smaller districts pointed out problems with insufficient

staffing and a need for more training to take on the requirements of the LCAP. Districts also

pointed out the need to change by putting an emphasis on collaboration. In addition, districts

also found it challenging to achieve meaningful levels of parent and community engagement, and

found that their principals really hadnt been prepared with how to do engagement. Some

schools cited problems at the poorest schools in dealing with issues like language, transportation,

and childcare.

Ultimately, despite these issues and growing pains, the SRI study found strong support

among district leaders for local control and hope about the future of the LCFF.