Photos by Alison Yin for EdSource

Photos by Alison Yin for EdSource

Any bill to change the manner that California funds its public schools will have to go through Joan Buchanan, and that could present problems for Gov. Jerry Brownish.

Buchanan is the new chair of the Assembly Education Committee, and, as she made clear in a lengthy interview with EdSource Today (encounter transcript), she'due south skeptical of Brown'due south weighted pupil formula, which he plans to reintroduce next year.

Buchanan is worried that funding for some districts would stagnate while funding for other districts would increase at a much higher rate under a weighted student formula.

Buchanan is worried that funding for some districts would stagnate while funding for other districts would increment at a much higher charge per unit under a weighted student formula. Photograph by Kathryn Baron. (Click to enlarge.)

Her views reflect those of suburban and demographically better off school districts that, similar everyone else, have lost more than $1,000 per educatee during the past five years, but at present fright that they won't be allowed to recoup if most of new money for education is redistributed to districts with large proportions of English language learners and low-income children. That's what the governor is proposing, although Chocolate-brown already has significantly inverse the formula one time and his directorate say he's open to further modifying information technology. His advisers are meeting iii times this month, in invitation-merely sessions, with key legislative staff and a cross-department of representatives of advocacy groups and schoolhouse districts to discuss ideas.

There may be no legislator more knowledgeable about K-12 issues than Buchanan, a Democrat from Alamo. For nearly two decades, she served on the San Ramon Valley Unified Schoolhouse District in Contra Costa County as she raised her v children. Before that, she was an executive with Delta Dental.

In the interview, she said she agreed with Brown'southward goal of directing more than money to disadvantaged children. But that formula requires California to respond a couple of question that no one has been comfortable tackling so far, said Buchanan.

"So what does it cost to educate every child in the State of California? Are we going to have coin away from districts that are succeeding and jeopardize the gains they've fabricated to put them into other districts? There has to be something that's equitable," she said.

Along with school finance reform, Buchanan discussed the implementation of Common Core (she has concerns about that, too), teacher evaluations, a potential school facilities bond in 2 years, and lease schools, during an hr-long interview with me and EdSource Today senior writer Kathryn Baron terminal month. It was during 1 of the Giants' playoff games, and Buchanan, an ardent fan, showed cocky-restraint in checking the score only a few times.

What follows is a transcript that's been edited for length.

Nosotros started by nigh prospects for a weighted student formula assuming the passage of Proffer 30, which would generate an boilerplate of $3 billion more annually for schools and customs colleges over the next seven years.

For background on the weighted pupil formula: Earlier this year, Chocolate-brown proposed simplifying school funding while directing more than money to needy children. He would provide a base rate for all districts, and and then group categorical dollars – restricted coin earmarked for several dozen programs – into one pot and redistribute them based on a district'southward percentages of low-income students and English language learners. Some chiselled programs are intended for disadvantaged children, but others, like reimbursement for class size reduction, have been open up to all districts. Suburban districts  with few needy children worry they'd lose this coin nether a weighted student formula. The base of operations grant – at to the lowest degree as proposed – would roughly correspond to what's called a commune'due south revenue limit. Merely districts' revenue limits aren't equal or equitable, and some suburban districts fear that the new base of operations limit under Dark-brown's formula – whatever it turns out to exist – would get the ceiling for them, locking them into below-average funding.

JOAN BUCHANAN:  The governor's overall goal is to endeavor and simplify regime. The problem with weighted educatee formula is, the way he'southward proposing it, information technology doesn't solve the problem.

EDSOURCE: Which is…?

When a weighted student formula was first proposed five years ago, school spending was higher and on a trajectory to increase substantially, Buchanan says, pointing to a graph she drew during the interview. Photo by John Fensterwald. Click to enlarge.

When a weighted student formula was start proposed five years ago, school spending was higher and on a trajectory to increase substantially, Buchanan says, pointing to a graph she drew during the interview. Photo by John Fensterwald. (Click to enlarge.)

BUCHANAN: Schools in California are underfunded. We spend $2,500 less per student than the national average, and we're a loftier cost-of-living country. If you have a wait at the capability reports, theGetting Downwards to Facts that Stanford put out in 2007, they said yous demand to spend more money; but, at the same time, spending more than money isn't enough. Y'all demand to exercise things differently.

In this land nosotros haven't even determined what it costs to provide a quality, basic didactics to all children, because then you would have an obligation to try and practise something virtually it. In that location are gaps at that place that I recall we need to fill in if nosotros're going to start talking about changing our funding formula.

EDSOURCE: Do you call back that we need to become back to the spending level the way information technology was in 2007, earlier we make any changes to the formula?

BUCHANAN: One question in weighted educatee formula that I have is, Are we going to bring all the schoolhouse districts support to where they were? Because, if not – and I saturday at the negotiations tabular array all eighteen years – what happens when my teachers are yet on furlough, and you're giving your teachers salary increases? What happens when you're restoring programs, and I can't restore programs?

Now, there'due south a 2nd effect. You have your revenue-limit funding, which is your unrestricted. And so yous take your restricted, which is your categorical, right? And then yous accept your federal funds.

The weighted educatee formula as proposed is going to deal with the subcategory of your restricted or your categorical funding. It doesn't accept into consideration that your basic revenue limits are very unequal. You can take a district like San Ramon Valley, which is in a very middle- to upper-middle-class community that has the fourth-everyman acquirement district in the land. It's a commune that gets no federal funds. It's a district that gets very little categoricals, because nosotros don't have a high enough percentage of English language-linguistic communication learners and others. Their chiselled is basically special pedagogy (editor's note: which is excluded in the governor'southward weighted student formula). Information technology'south textbooks. It is course size reduction. There are a few programs similar that, and that's information technology. So, practise you take their textbook coin?

Are we going to take San Ramon's categorical funding and equalize that, not taking into consideration what their revenue limit may be – it'due south below boilerplate, but far below others. What do you do with districts merely south of united states, where, because of laws in the by, revenue limits are a g dollars per educatee more?

If you want to do it right, someone's got to enquire the question, How are we going to make certain that every kid gets that base funding to go a quality didactics? How are we going to provide boosted funding to the higher-need areas for students that require more time and support to be able to achieve standards? And what'south the path to get there?

What I've seen in California schools for decades is nosotros just continue leveling down. So is weighted student formula, in and of itself, the right way to go? Or exercise we need other systemic changes along with that, to actually bring upwards achievement?

EDSOURCE: So the two premises in the weighted student formula. One is flexibility – let locals determine, in terms of…

BUCHANAN:  But you lot know besides as I do, they've washed that for years. When the country has money, they say, "We don't trust y'all to make a determination." That'southward how a lot of these categoricals got created, you know? "We're afraid that if we give yous this money, you lot're only going to give it to teachers or whoever, and you're non going to really do annihilation to meliorate programs. And so we've got money, and we'll give you lot toll-of-living, but we're going to create a new categorical."

And so, when the land doesn't have money, they say, "Yous know what? You know amend than us. So you decide where y'all want to cutting."

And and then creating this formula, and taking coin abroad from schools, and saying, "Well, we're giving you flexibility," I retrieve that'due south a faux statement.

EDSOURCE:  But  if you lot trust the view at the Department of Finance projections, and if Prop. 30 passes, at that place will exist billions of dollars over the next vii, eight years – that'southward additional coin…

BUCHANAN: But exercise you believe that yous should be bringing some schools upward to where they were two or three times faster than other schools? Because that's what his formula does.

EDSOURCE: The other part of his premise is that, yes, disadvantaged kids need more money.

BUCHANAN:  I concord. But disadvantaged kids also get federal funds. They get coin from other categorical programs. And exercise they demand more on top of that? Yes. Merely and then do children in other school districts.

So what does it cost to brainwash every child in the State of California? Are we going to take money away from districts that are succeeding and jeopardize the gains they've fabricated to put  them into other districts? There has to be something that's equitable.

On height of that, you lot've got the governor going around making deals. If you accept a wait at the Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grants (TIIG), where 80 per centum of the money goes to four districts, that money was originally the desegregation busing money. But you go down and make a bargain with LAUSD, then that they to keep that money, but you accept other districts that take to give upwards money. Is that right?

EDSOURCE:  Then is in that location a way of phasing information technology in, a longer path than the half dozen or seven years that the governor proposed?

BUCHANAN: I think you can phase it in, only I think you lot've got to take an approach that takes a look at all the money that we receive, that we spend for didactics, on the instructional side of the upkeep; and you've got to effigy out, how practise nosotros phase it in, in a way that we're not creating winners and losers?

EDSOURCE: So the governor last fourth dimension put it in the budget, and so it was actually not discussed at length. And if he does that once again, what would be an appropriate response from the Assembly?

BUCHANAN:  I call up you'd go a like result, response. Last year, if you call back nearly information technology, there was not one member of the education community that supported the weighted student formula.

EDSOURCE: Then how would you lot like it handled, then, this yr?

BUCHANAN: It should be handled through policy committee; merely I also call back, if you're talking about such a major change to how we fund schools in the state of California, it's more than than just a bill. You need to really put some work into it, to determine, again, what is the cost to educate a child? Where are nosotros now? Where do nosotros want to exist? And what's the right path to get there?

Go slow on Mutual Cadre

Joan Buchanan

Joan Buchanan

EDSOURCE: Some other issue that's coming is Mutual Core. Yous've expressed some business organization about the timing and the amount of money that it would cost to prepare teachers and districts for that.

BUCHANAN:  First of all, I support the concept of national Common Core standards. For too long in this nation, we've had apples-to-oranges comparisons from state to state considering we have different standards. Nosotros have dissimilar tests, and information technology's really difficult to make those kinds of comparisons. The Common Core they've adult are good standards, although, as you know, the Fordham Institute rates California standards an "A," and the Mutual Core, a "B." My concern is what happens at the commune level.

Most districts are now, with flexibility in spending, using their textbook dollars to keep other programs afloat, and so yous have a system where we're asking our school districts to implement new Mutual Cadre standards without whatever coin for training and in-service, without any coin for textbooks or other instructional materials, and then, on top of that, if they don't do it well, we're testing. I have serious concerns as to whether or non nosotros're going to do it well, or whether or not we're setting students and teachers and schools upwardly for failure.

EDSOURCE:  Would you advise slowing it down, putting off the implementation?

BUCHANAN: Yes, slowing it down, or phasing information technology in. At that place are some districts that accept been working hard on it. You could allow some districts to implement and test and phase information technology in, only there'due south got to be a more thoughtful approach.

Yous can talk to schools. They're not even sure how we're going to do the Smarter Counterbalanced (Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, an organization of states designing the assessment) that requires all the computers and the testing with the equipment that they take. Practice we have the applied science and the bandwidth and all the other infrastructure there to support the new test?

EDSOURCE:  One of the possibilities is to first with a pen-and-paper test. Will you lot entertain legislation that says, "No, let'southward non do the Smarter Balanced assessment in 2014-15? We should put that off several more years and continue with the CSTs (California Standards Tests)?"

BUCHANAN: I don't program to author that legislation. The State Lath is looking into this. Nosotros need to let them practice their job, because I would hope that everyone wants to be sure that we have a successful implementation.

I've worked with data systems in the individual and public sector; and at that place's the old saying that users tin make a good system neglect, or a bad arrangement succeed. We want to create the environment where we take the system and we do all we can to brand information technology be successful.

Collaborate with teachers on evaluations

EDSOURCE: One of the problems at the finish of the Legislature was teacher evaluations, and the whole thing barbarous apart in the last few days. I'm sure the issue will come upwardly unless everyone's had enough scars for the next five years. Then how would you deal with the issue? Would y'all start with the current Stull Act or do you lot recollect it needs rewriting? You've had a lot of experience immediate.

BUCHANAN:  I actually call back it probably needs to be rewritten. When you start taking a await at Ed Code, including all the articles on evaluation, y'all'll find out that there are references to other sections that don't even exist. The easiest thing to practise would be to simply replace the Stull Human action with a new evaluation procedure that works, and is clear, and is easy to understand by everybody.

EDSOURCE: What would your ideal evaluation bill look similar?

BUCHANAN: I'1000 in the process, and want to meet with all the different stakeholders, because that's critically important. If you have a good evaluation neb, information technology'southward going to have multiple parts. I think information technology's going to be based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession.

Equally for assessments or scores, the research says you should not base teacher evaluations on tests that y'all requite one time a year, that that's not the proper use of them. Simply I would want to take a look at both formative and summative evaluations in terms of how are we using those to improve instructional practices and improve student learning? Those are two key components that demand to exist in an evaluation.

EDSOURCE:  A contentious point in the end of AB 5 was over negotiations. Whether or not…

BUCHANAN:  Yous should negotiate?

EDSOURCE:  Exactly.

BUCHANAN:  Equally I told you, I sat at the table 18 years in the commune, and we all knew that the current evaluation arrangement wasn't working, and so we had a group of teachers and principals that got together and met for a year, and said, "We take a new evaluation system. We want to pilot it."

And it was a system based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. It required much more fourth dimension of the principals, simply provided much more meaningful information to the teachers.

And and so, the next year, we had more schools that said, "We want to pilot it." And once more, you hit that critical mass where you bring it in district-broad.

I really believe that if y'all sit down and take a conversation about this, and anybody buys into it, you're going to end up with a much stronger arrangement; and I've been frustrated for years by, whether it'southward board members or superintendents or others, who don't want to respect the bargaining process. If something's not expert for the district, you accept to say no. But y'all also need to be able to work with the people who are on the front lines every day. How do you expect to improve didactics if you lot tin't work with teachers?

And I have found teachers, over the years, they tend to be conservative. They have a nifty bargain of pride in their piece of work and in their profession, and they want all teachers to perform at high levels. So I'one thousand personally non afraid of the bargaining process.

EDSOURCE:  Your process started in a conversation, and not a formal negotiation procedure, but a consensus building. Then you went back based on instructor support, and information technology was basically, at that betoken, the bargaining had been washed informally.

BUCHANAN:  Right. But we've had other manufactures in our contract where nosotros started at the table; but, with anything you're doing, I would hope that the leadership is going dorsum and getting input from its members, and direction's doing the same; and there are other times when you negotiate where you concur, okay? "We're going to ready this aside. We're going to form a committee and have them look at it."

But do I think you tin can come up with fair evaluation systems by negotiating those parts that are important? I do believe you can.

EDSOURCE:  And should that be primarily a local determination? Or to what extent should the state determine what the parameters are, or how many categories you will have in terms of, yous know, satisfactory, unsatisfactory?

BUCHANAN:  I think the state should create an umbrella; and I think, under that umbrella, locals should accept discretion in terms of what they believe is near important. And I say that considering we have over a grand school districts in the country.

We have LA Unified, with 10 percent of our students. We have one-school school districts. We have school districts where yous have close to a hundred percent free and reduced lunch/English language-language learners. Nosotros have others where it's much smaller percentages. And and so I really exercise remember information technology makes sense.

To attempt and say to the State of California, "I tin can come up with an evaluation system that works for every single district, and tell y'all exactly what to await for," I just don't remember that's true. I think if we charge local school board members and superintendents with the responsibleness for running their schools, there has to be some trust at that place that under an umbrella they tin come up with evaluation systems that work.

Figure out how to pay for new schoolhouse applied science

EDSOURCE: One of the areas that y'all spent a lot of time on as a school board member is facilities, and the superintendent of public instruction is talking well-nigh a bond in 2014. Do you lot retrieve that'southward a good idea? Is it necessary? Is now the time to do information technology? And how would you lot structure this bail if you could?

BUCHANAN: I'm on the state allocations board, and I just got asked to chair a committee to take a look at how we might structure a new bond and brand recommendations to the Legislature. A number of us want to have a look at can nosotros streamline programs to make them easier to administrate, easier for districts to understand. To have a look at where the need is going to be with money. Practice we need a bond? Absolutely!

The outcome that's going to come up is that when you take a expect at the state budget, over the concluding decade, debt service has grown past 110 percentage; and, whereas debt service used to be two percent of the general fund in the '70s. It was 4 percent in the '80s. It's now up to over 7 percent, and will increase to over 10 per centum if nosotros don't sell another bond. The Legislature, long-term, and the governor, demand to ask ourselves What should we be using general obligation bonds to finance in this state? What's that proper apply?

I definitely think instruction is, because education is an arm of land government. Education is not an arm of cities or counties. And the state has an obligation to educate all of its children, and an economic interest, because an educated workforce helps to build a stiff economy.

The program we've created where the state partners with developers for new construction makes sense. Information technology partners with school districts for modernization. The $35 billion in bonds was passed in the terminal decade have been matched by over $lxx billion in local bonds, and it'southward been skilful for the economic system, but it's also been skilful for the children in California. And, with a school system equally big as ours, nosotros're ever going to need money, whether it's to build new schools or to rehabilitate existing schools.

EDSOURCE:  Should a sizable portion of this be devoted to technology? And we talked almost Smarter Balanced and the need for bandwidth, and more computers.

BUCHANAN: Well, right at present, under Prop. 39 bonds, you can include applied science; and most districts include that, whether they're in their new construction or modernization. You can use Prop. 39 bonds to purchase furniture and equipment.

Just, overall, we've got to figure out how we deal with the technology outcome, considering if you lot're modernizing or building a new school, then you put in technology. But if your schoolhouse'due south 15 years old, what do you practice in terms of replacing those computers, or expanding bandwidth?

The technology event in the State of California is more than but bonds. We're going to have to figure out how practise we fund this on an ongoing basis because teachers and districts are using technology more and more than in instructional practices. And when you look at computers, you've got to figure, about every four years, v years at the near, you've got to replace them.

EDSOURCE:  What would you say is the state's responsibility in regard to facilities and engineering science to lease schools?

BUCHANAN: If you take a wait at the concluding bond, money was included in that bond for charter schools.

EDSOURCE:  Are there other areas regarding charter schools that y'all recall demand attention, either tighter regulation or less regulation? Different relationships between district schools and charter schools?

BUCHANAN: There are times you lot feel similar y'all're at state of war between traditional schools and charter schools, and I think that we need to notice more ways that nosotros tin can work together and get along. I practice call back that at some bespeak we're going to have to address financial accountability of charter schools and conflicts of interest considering, right at present, schoolhouse districts have certain audit requirements and other requirements that lease schools don't have. They're publicly-funded schools, and there needs to be a level of accountability.

The other outcome that I believe strongly is that it'southward near as though we provide rewards or incentives to become a lease school, but we're not providing those kinds of rewards for public schools.

When you they're bringing in new programs, and every single twelvemonth the test scores are going up, and they're closing the achievement gap, or they've got an API of 850 or 900, should nosotros not have rewards for those schools? In the parent-trigger law we put in a provision that, if you have a score of 800 or higher, you're not discipline to the parent trigger; but I recall we've got to come with more ways to reward public schools for doing all that nosotros ask them to do.

EDSOURCE:  You mean in terms of flexibility or fiscal or what?

BUCHANAN:  Flexibility and in terms of should you be subject to the same rules regarding conversion to charter schools? We need to accept what works and we need to support that, and reward that, regardless of where it occurs.

To become more than reports like this one, click here to sign upwardly for EdSource'south no-toll daily email on latest developments in education.