Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year must correct the overstated amount of funding his administration believes is owed to schools next year if it is truly concerned with reducing costs and the deficit in California.
In a recent review of Brown’s revised budget, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that Brown’s budget overestimated the amount of funding owed to primary education despite decreases in revenue this past year.
The LAO’s review said because of an apparent misinterpretation of a complicated funding formula, Brown’s budget, as it stands, would have granted schools $1.7 billion more than what would be owed under the existing formula for school funding guarantees established by Proposition 98 in 1988, which requires the state to match spending for education to that of previous years plus adjustments for growth in student enrollment.
A misallocation of $1.7 billion when the current budget deficit totals $16.6 billion is bad enough for an administration that claims to make fiscal responsibility a priority.
It is even worse, however, considering this money would have been unnecessarily cut from other programs during tough economic times for California.
Under Proposition 98, almost 45 percent of the state’s general fund (the main pool of revenue for several state programs ranging from welfare to child care) is currently guaranteed to go to the state’s funding for K-14 education. The funding formula under Proposition 98 the administration used, however, was designed for years of economic growth, during which revenues and the general fund would be large enough to cover such spending increases.
Unfortunately for us, the economy has not fully resumed growth in California and, as the Legislative Analyst’s report states, the deficit has only grown throughout the recession.
If the administration does not use alternate funding formulas created under Proposition 98 that account for larger deficits and less revenue, funding for welfare and other safety net programs could be cut without reason.
The political conflict for Brown’s administration is troublesome no matter what actions the administration decides to take in response to these reports. If Brown does not address the error in funding and apply more realistic formulas to put the money back in the general fund for other programs, it would damage his administration’s claim to fiscal responsibility, especially as it now pushes for an $8.5 billion tax initiative to further reduce the deficit and avoid cuts to education.
If he does take these surplus funds away from public schools, Brown may put at risk the political support and donations of teacher unions in California that have generally supported Democratic candidates in the past, as well as weaken his argument against cuts in education.
The California School Boards Association, among other groups, supports his tax initiative precisely because it would avert further cuts in education. It may be in the interest of higher education institutions like the UC system to support such increases in revenue to prevent such cuts in school funding, but how Gov. Brown will be able to balance their interests with other vital programs targeted for cuts will be an ongoing challenge.
Funding for education, however, should not come at the cost of cuts to important aid programs that are necessary in preventing further hardships for people who have lost their jobs and financial security during the recession.
In this case, such cuts can only be avoided by ensuring that the funding to education is determined using formulas that account for the lack of revenue and economic growth in this still-recovering economy.
Email Bensley at lbensley@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us
@DBOpinion.