Finally, improving current data on facility conditions would go a long way toward accurately assessing needs and targeting the schools and districts with the greatest need. To make it easier for small districts with lower organizational and fiscal capacity to qualify for and receive funding, county offices of education and/or the California Department of Education could provide greater technical assistance. Recently proposed changes-including a sliding scale for district contributions keyed to local wealth and/or need, prioritization of facility needs, and greater funding for hardship cases-could help narrow funding inequities. State policies could improve the equity and efficiency of facilities funding.This suggests that focusing on which districts receive funding may be more impactful than efforts to influence which schools within districts are targeted for facility improvements. However, within-district allocations generally have a small impact on across-district disparities. Districts target more funding to schools with higher shares of low-income and Latino students. Districts allocate funding across schools in ways that reduce inequities across districts.However, higher levels of hardship funding have kept average per student state funding in rural districts comparable to funding per student in cities and towns. Most districts that have received no SFP funding are rural. ” Suburban districts received the most funding per pupil and are the least likely to have received no funding at all. Suburban districts have received the most SFP funding, while funding for rural districts has been “boom or bust.Funding for both financial and facility-based hardship-the third major program-has been significant enough for higher-need and lower-wealth students and districts to partially address disparities. Funding for new construction, a second major program, goes mainly to growing districts it has been higher in lower-wealth districts, but also in districts with fewer high-need students. Higher-wealth and lower-need districts have received more funding for modernization, one of three major SFP programs. Disparities are driven largely by modernization funding-and partially addressed by hardship funding. Per student state funding has been highest in the districts with the fewest high-need students. Low-income, English Learner (EL), and Latino students have received less funding than higher-income, non-EL, and white students since 1998.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |