|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The main question we want to answer today is:
- Does Redwood City School District (RCSD) need more funding?
- Is RCSD really too “underserved” and too “underfunded” to do right by their teachers and students now?
- Does RCSD really need to increase unaffordability in this city to attract and retain better teachers?
The Promises of Measure C
The stated purposes of the proposed parcel tax include funding for:
– Attracting and retaining qualified teachers, counselors, and school staff;
– Preserving science, technology, engineering, and math instruction;
– Protecting arts and music programs;
– Maintaining literacy programs;
– Supporting reading and writing programs;
– Maintaining manageable class sizes and upgrading classroom technology and instructional tools.
[RCSD – Measure C]
Disclaimer: Some readers may now understand how important “Additionality” is. Measure C does not explicitly state that the revenue must be additive to prior funding levels in its text. Which means the funding goes into the General Fund and might or might not be used to increase current instructional funding, or might just free up funds for other purposes.
To give you a real example. As a direct consequence of Measure S, the district now has to pay ca. $11 million per year in interest on its debt. Measure C is supposedly bringing in $12 million per year. There is nothing that prevents RCSD from using the education budget to pay for this and backfill that hole with Measure C funding. But since there is no additionality in this scenario, it would not benefit students and teachers.
RCSD has used misleading ballot language like this before. Sacramento lawmakers don’t seem to be willing to protect their voters from misdeeds like this.
Exhibit 1 – California Education Funding
With the help of Prop 98 (“40% guarantee”), the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), and the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), California has firmly assured that no student in California is “underserved” or “underfunded” anymore. LCFF even takes into account students coming from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds (SED) and students with varying abilities (SPED). If you heard otherwise, you have been misled. Solid leadership would make “underserving” almost impossible. But then again, solid leadership still seems a rare sighting in these realms. CalMatters wants to point out that school districts often misdirect LCFF funding because California forgot to set guardrails and punishment.
So if your school is complaining about being underfunded and underserved, the fault lies firmly with “The Locals“. Local Control has all the power to do good. Unfortunately, they also have the power to do bad.
… but wait, there is more.
Exhibit 2 – Funding over the Years
LCFF is for “poor” rural districts and not-so-poor urban counties (Excess ERAF); really rich districts are called “basic aid”, “community-funded,” or “ExcessTax”. RCSD has been an Excess Tax since 2019.
Since 2019, they have been able to keep all their local property taxes. How did that affect their financials? Here is some data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that can help with answering our main questions:
| Category | 2020 (fiscal 2018–2019) | 2023 (fiscal 2021–2022) | 2024 (fiscal 2022–2023) |
|---|---|---|---|
| District name | Redwood City Elementary | Redwood City Elementary | Redwood City Elementary |
| District funding | LCFF/ERAF | Excess Tax (basic aid) | Excess Tax (basic aid) |
| School-owned Properties | 17 | 17 | 17 |
| Total schools | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| Needed schools | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| Total students | 6,770 | 6,332 | 6,394 |
| Total revenue | $132,740,000 | $160,841,000 | $187,100,000 |
| Per-Student Funding | $17,642 | $25,163 | $29,483 |
| Instructional Spending | $64,458,000 | $71,677,000 | $74,394,000 |
| “Expense of Education” (EDC 41372) | $8,567 (60%) | $11,214 (58%) | $11,723 (56%) |
| Classroom teachers | 307 | 313 | 302 |
| Instructional aides | 107 | 164 | 150 |
| Total staff (FTE) | 670.59 | 766.44 | 760.83 |
| Total revenue | $132,740,000 | $160,841,000 | $187,100,000 |
| Total expenditures | $135,644,000 ($18,028/student) | $193,004,000 ($30,195/student) | $165,953,000 ($26,151/student) |
| Total capital outlay | $19,056,000 ($2,533/student) | $55,680,000 ($8,711/student) | $16,751,000 ($2,640/student) |
| Interest on debt | $8,196,000 ($1,089/student) | $10,893,000 ($1,704/student) | $10,955,000 ($1,726/student) |
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for RCSD
These 2022/23 numbers (last column) look outstanding; since then, the numbers have only improved. Any semi-decent Chief Business Officer (CBO) could turn this into the best-run school district in California and the Nation. With those kinds of numbers, they could do much better for students and teachers now.
We should quickly point out the last row. RCSD needs $11 million per year, and the amount is rising, to pay interest on debt. Measure C would raise about $12 million per year.
„Honi soit qui mal y pense“
… but wait, we can dig deeper.
Exhibit 3 – Understanding these Numbers
Before 2019, RCSD had to return millions of dollars in ERAF funding to Redwood City and San Mateo County. (I remember it might have been $16 million in 2016 or 2017 – but don’t quote me on that). The first column is based on the old LCFF funding; the other two are after RCSD turned “basic aid” or fully “community-funded.” Here is what these numbers, combined with yearly School Accountability Report Cards (SARCs), can teach us:
- One advantage of being “basic aid” is that RCSD can retain all funding despite decreased enrollment. Students could really benefit from a decrease in enrollment, as more funding per student would be available.
- As expected for most basic-aid districts in high-property-value areas like ours, Total Revenue has increased significantly (+41%), while enrollment has declined (-6%).
- This combination leads to an outstanding increase in per-student funding from $17,500 to $29,500 in just a few years (+67%).
- Fewer students, same amount of teachers, but staff is still growing.
- There is no sign that the district is addressing the inefficiencies caused by more empty seats and underutilized administrative staff. And this shows in the next numbers.
- Unfortunately, per-student spending on pure classroom education may have increased only from $5,000 to around $6,500. (These numbers are based on average teacher salaries and classroom sizes)
- $29,500 per-student funding; $6,500 per-student means RCSD is only spending 22%-26% on core classroom education. The School Accountability Report Card (SARC) has this number at 26% and shrinking fast.
- This is why the “Expense of Education” is going down from 60% to 56%. This lack of educational spending requires exemption from the County Board of Education.
- Why the county superintendent would exempt a rich district like RCSD from spending on its students is very baffling. Similar issues got the San Bernardino County superintendent of schools in trouble with the ACLU.
- Exploding revenue: within just 4 years, RCSD revenue grew from $132M to $187M.
- While the district had a $33M deficit in fiscal year 2021, it seems to have cleaned up since then. The latest numbers show a $ 22 M surplus.
The “basic aid” revenue explosion did not benefit students or teachers. The number of teachers has barely changed. The number of administrators has grown.
… but wait, there is more.
Exhibit 4 – Broken Promises
Closing 4 low-income schools did not help
In 2018, RCSD Superintendent John Baker and the Board promised more funding for students and teachers if the community supported him in closing four low-income neighborhood schools to keep four very expensive Magnet Schools.
=> That funding never came.
Turning Basic Aid did not help
RCSD Superintendent John Baker and the Board promised more funding for students and teachers once RCSD became fully community-funded (aka “basic aid”) like all these neighboring districts to the south.
His dream was realized in 2019.
=> The funding never came.
Measure S will solve all problems
RCSD Superintendent John Baker and the Board promised more funding for students and teachers in 2022 with Measure S. The argument was that the measure could free up general fund resources bound to real estate costs. Those funds could then be spent on teachers and students.
=> The funding never came.
… but wait, there is more.
Summary
Talking about “freeing up general fund resources” …
… did I ever mention that RCSD needs $11 million per year to pay interest on debt? Measure C would raise about $12 million per year.
“Fool me once, shame on… shame on you. Fool me… You can’t get fooled again.” [George W. Bush]
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed in all blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Redwood City Pulse or its staff.
