Category Archives: Education Funding

Politics Matter– even if you hate it

Posted on by
Reply

Lisa Romero is an Professor of Education Policy and Leadership at California State University Sacramento

I often hear educators say that they hate politics and tune-out news from Capitol Hill.  I always find that puzzling coming from the same people who say they care passionately about education. Soooo… here’s an example of why it matters.

There is an important policy showdown in Washington DC right now that educational leaders, aspiring leaders, or anyone who cares about education and particularly higher education, should be tuned in to. The $3.5 trillion Build-Back-Better legislation, sometimes referred to as the reconciliation bill, promises a lot of money, and a historic reshaping of the federal role in funding higher education. The current rendition of the bill includes the American College Promise plan which includes tuition-free community college, expanded Pell grants, and funding incentives (with strings attached) for college completion and retention.  But these are only part of a wide-ranging bill that also includes funding for other important issues—for example, lowering health care and prescription drug costs, money for clean energy and climate change, and support for childcare, among others.

Without getting too far down in the federal policy and politics weeds, there is far from any guarantee that the bill will pass, at least without a substantial haircut. Republicans in the Senate are promising to block it, conservative Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Simena (AZ) have made clear that they won’t vote for a bill with a dollar sign this big. This lays open the question, if the bill is cut, what is cut with it?

To understand more about the higher ed components of the bill and their potential implications to reshape the federal role in high education, listen to Inside Higher Education’s The Key Podcast: Reshaping the Federal Role in Higher Ed

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/09/20/reshaping-federal-state-partnership-higher-ed-key-podcast#.YUyI6QdbG1o.link

Counting and Kids

Posted on by
Reply

Lisa S. Romero is an Associate Professor at the California State University Sacramento.

Amid all the excitement about the 2020 election, you might have missed a bit of news that has very broad consequences for our nation’s schools and students. In October, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to halt the 2020 Census count.  Its ruling effectively ended the count of what is supposed to be every person in the nation. This is not trivial because it means that some people, in some states, were less likely to be counted than others.  Undercounting has very real implications for funding for schools and students, and for reapportionment and the electoral college.

Undercounting: Who’s Likely to be Undercounted and Why?

Some states, like California, are more likely to have its population undercounted. Why? The state has a more mobile population which is harder to find, and therefore harder to count. This includes people who don’t own homes and move from one apartment to another, and migrant and seasonal workers who move around the state following jobs. We can add to this a higher rate of homelessness in some states. If you drive down the road and see folks living in tents along the right-of-way, there is some good reason to think they may not have been counted.

And, in states with higher immigrant populations, an undercount is also more likely. In this case, people may be afraid to answer official requests for information because of their visa status. Compare California with an immigrant population of about 27% with that of Idaho, at about 6%, and it becomes clear why this is more of an issue for a state like California. Overall, people who are most likely to be missing from Census counts are renters, Natives Americans, Latinos, Blacks, young children, and limited English speakers.

The Census and Funding for Students and Schools

The Census has broad ramifications for schools and especially for students from low income families. Census data determines the distribution of:

  • More than $14 billion in Title I grants that help schools that serve 24 million plus students from low-income families
  • Nearly $30 billion in Pell grant funding for low income college students
  • $11.3 billion in special education grants to the states
  • About $19 billion for the National School Lunch Program
  • $8.5 billion for Head Start preschool programs
  • Plus, funding to support Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities, grants to improve teacher quality, funding for career and technical education, and the list goes on.

Reapportionment and The Electoral College

Census counts are also the basis for reapportionment, a fancy word for determining how many Members of Congress each state is allocated.  By law, the U.S House of Representatives has 435 members.  Every ten years, Census data is used to determine of how many Members of Congress will be allocated to each state, and thus which states will gain representation, and which states will lose representation. Undercounting in any state therefore leads to a disproportionate loss of representation in Congress. It also determines how many Electoral College votes each state has, which as we all know well by now, is how the outcome of Presidential elections are determined. After this Census, California and New York are expected to lose Electoral College votes, while States like Texas and Florida are expected to gain.

This is the reason that states work to boost Census participation and the reason that many states fought the action of the Trump administration to stop the count. Sadly, this Census was mired in political division.  But even more sadly, it will be students who suffer from a Census made political, and a Census ended prematurely.  We can and should do better for America’s youth.

Another Symptom of COVID-19: Cash-Strapped Colleges

Posted on by
Reply

For those of us who care about higher education and our nation, this is a sobering article. Many university programs, will simply not survive. Others will be changed forever. And even more sobering is impact that our nation will feel in the years and decades to come.

Lisa S. Romero is an Associate Professor at the California State University Sacramento.

Don’t Be Fooled By False Narratives: Prop 15 will Help California Schools and Community Colleges, It won’t Raise Home Owner Property Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

For the past 42 years, two words have had the ability to almost always start an argument in California.  Those two words are, “Prop 13.”  Passed by voters in 1978, Proposition 13 requires that residential, commercial and industrial properties be taxed based on purchase price rather than current market value. Simple, right?  No, not really.

For many people in California, Prop 13 is something close to sacred.  These people will tell you that it is the only reason they can own a home, the only reason they can afford to live in California.  And any attempt to change Prop 13 is universally rejected by these folks — universally seen as a means to raise taxes and undermine home ownership.

On the flip side of the coin, others look at the history of Prop 13 as a primary reason that California schools and students have suffered.  Quite simply, by blocking the ability to tax   based on real property values, schools have been underfunded for decades. In 1978 California’s per pupil expenditures was above the national average; today it is far below. While calculations differ, California’s poor standing is clear. States like New York spend over $10,000 more per student than California. This from a state that prides itself in being a leader in science and technology. 

Proposition 15 on the November 2020 ballot offers a solution to both homeowner and education advocate concerns.  In essence, it leaves in place the tax calculation for homeowners, and for properties owned for commercial agriculture.  However, phased in over time, most commercial and industrial properties would be taxed based on market value.  Many argue that this is a fair solution given that homes often change hands, each time resetting their tax base to the current market value, while commercial and industrial properties often are held over time, sometimes for decades, allowing their tax base to stay low.  In fact, advocates of Proposition 15 claim that between $8 and $12.5 billion per year would be generated, with 40 percent distributed to school and community college districts.

You will likely see raging arguments coming in social media and in (appropriately distanced) neighborhood discussions. Expect deliberately misleading posts on social media and ads paid for by big corporate and industry groups claiming the downfall of home ownership in California. With the election still months away, posts on Facebook incorrectly declaring Californians will see soaring home property taxes are already appearing. But like all political discussions, it’s a good idea to know the facts and keep a clear head: Passing Proposition 15 could provide a long needed lift to California schools and community colleges, and it will not raise residential property taxes.

For more about Proposition 15 and 13: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020)

Author: Lisa S. Romero