Aligning resources with expectations: it's time to build the political will necessary to better align our expectations for students and schools with the programs, services and resources they need.

In 1997, when the State Board of Education conducted hearings on the academic content standards, CSBA testified to the board: "In order to do more than just pay lip service to the rigor of the standards, it is essential that we begin the discussion now about how the state and school districts will build the infrastructure to ensure that all students, not just some students, will meet those standards."

Nearly a decade later, there has been no serious conversation by the State Board of Education, Legislature or governor's office on this critical issue. To the contrary, California continues to add new activities and programs to school districts while providing resources based on historical precedent and the prevailing political winds. The goals, activities and funding for public education are discussed in isolation of one another and are not rationally connected.

California has determined what students should know and be able to do at each grade level and what their performance needs to be in order to graduate from high school. Each year several hundred bills are signed into law that impact education, adding to the 17 volumes of education code that mandate how school districts should operate. The state also oversees more than 100 categorical programs, each with its own goals, procedures, accountability requirements and funding amounts.

And each year the amount of funding allocated to schools is, for the most part, driven by a funding formula that is based on historical precedent and the economic pendulum, neither of which is related to the actual costs of the services being delivered. It is no wonder that many educators resign themselves to the idea that they are caught in the strait-jacket of California's school funding insane asylum.

The ability to clearly link resources, activities and goals in a rational and logical manner is a model that many educators and school leaders would welcome. In the 1990s, when the state moved in the direction of standards and accountability, part of the thinking was that public education would be held accountable for student outcomes and not mountains of paperwork and legislative pet projects. That there would be an opportunity to assess student and community needs at the local level and provide programs and services to meet those needs. That funding for schools would match our expectations for students and take into consideration the variety of needs that are represented throughout the state.

It is a conversation we have had in fits and starts in California, but there has yet to be consensus or the political will to do anything differently. There have been debates about sweeping categorical program reform and weighted student formulas, as well as specific tax increases for schools such as sales tax and split roll property tax. There was the Pre-K-16 Master Plan and the Quality Education Commission. In recent months, the Governor's Commission on Educational Excellence and the Superintendent of Public Instruction's P-16 Council have begun working on many of the core school funding and policy issues in the state.

California is not alone. There are many examples of other states that have tried to rethink K-12 school funding policy. For example, in 1993 the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, a coalition of parent organizations, community school boards, concerned citizens and advocacy groups seeking to reform New York State's school finance system, filed a lawsuit against New York State.

The lawsuit asserted that the state was failing in its constitutional duty to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to New York City schoolchildren. After a decade of litigation, the Court of Appeals found in favor of the plaintiffs.

During the same time, CFE, the Governor's Commission on Education Reform and the New York State Board of Regents each commissioned separate studies to determine what resources and reforms were necessary to ensure students were provided a sound basic education. These studies recommended funding increases ranging from $2.5 billion to $9 billion for pre K-12 education. The court determined that for New York City schools alone it was necessary to increase funding by $5.3 billion. The state has yet to comply with the court order.

In Pennsylvania and Alabama, the courts have been more reluctant to intervene. In Pennsylvania, the court has consistently held that school funding litigation is not justifiable and in Alabama the courts vacated their own remedy order and dismissed the case. Although the courts have not provided leverage in these states, advocates from diverse constituency groups, such as faith leaders, the business community and grassroots advocacy organizations, have joined forces with educators to advocate for K12 school funding and reform.

According to ACCESS, a national project of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, 45 of the 50 states have seen lawsuits challenging the state's method for funding K-12 public schools. In addition, numerous local, state and national coalitions have been formed to mount campaigns focused on improving educational opportunities for students.

In California, there is work in progress that could set the stage for a dramatic shift in the debate on K-12 school funding policy. Four prominent foundations, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation and the Stuart Foundation, have commissioned a series of studies that will examine the cost of a high-quality education in California and review the effectiveness and efficiency of how resources are distributed in the state. At the same time, local grassroots organizations are gearing up to mobilize their communities.

Advocating for change

An effort initiated by the California School Boards Association in partnership with ACSA, Children Now, the League of Women Voters of California and other members of the Education Coalition is also under way to create a state coalition consisting of education and child advocates, business leaders, good government groups and others to build consensus around school funding in the state and advocate for change.

What remains to be seen is if we will be able to move past the divisive politics that have bogged this conversation down. Will it be possible to talk about our goals, activities and resources and find appropriate ways to make sure they are aligned? Are we as a state willing to examine our goals and expectations for students and schools? Are we willing to carefully evaluate how we do business and if there are ways to more efficiently and effectively provide services? Can we fairly assess the resources that are necessary to help students reach the goals we have identified for them?

Opportunity to reflect

It seems like the tempo is always quick in education; that it is far too easy to get nauseous and dizzy from the school funding roller coaster. Frantically trying to build agreement and scrutinizing every policy direction, we are always reacting, always planning.

Now we have an opportunity on the horizon to stop and reflect. We can learn from other states that have started to rethink their school funding systems and try to adapt their experiences to California's context. We can be open to the research that the four foundations are sponsoring in California. We can create coalitions with unusual partners and move beyond conversation to action.

After many fits and starts, it is time to build the political will necessary to better align our expectations for students and schools with the programs, services and resources they need to meet those expectations.

Samantha Tran is senior research consultant for the California School Boards Association.