Issue Background
The improper allocation of educational funding in California has been happening far before the 1970s. Prior to 1971, the funding for the California education system was allocated based on property values within a community. So, high income communities have higher property values, therefore receiving more funding than low income communities with lower property values. In 1972, Serrano v. Priest, the California Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to have such disparity in school funding, and that the state must create uniformity in the allocation of school funding for all districts (Weston, 2010). The equalization of funding began, yet the utilization of funding is still a current issue at hand. A bit of further background, Title 1 funding (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, 1965) is the start of providing a foundational funding system for low income youth, providing various services, such as, free and reduced lunch. Then there is No Child Left Behind Funding, providing: basic grants, migrant education grants, early education, and school improvement grants (Agustin, M. & et al., 2012). As these funding sources have been monumental to the progress of educational funding, it is essential to understand the issue of educational funding is still so present, especially for, those who are considered “needy” students. In 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enforced, which required the governmental board of each school district to create a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) on or prior to July of 2014. In all, this California Legislature was enforced to create a fundamental change in the way school districts are funded. Even more so, low-income youth, students in foster care, and English language learners were being recognized as some of the most vulnerable student population. So now that these groups of individuals have been identified as a vulnerable student population, it helps understand the present issue occurring within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), in regards to proper funding distribution.
In 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) on behalf of parent Reyna Frias and Community Coalition, which is a local Los Angeles social justice based organization. The state of California, at the time, had recently released its education funding budget, as well as the education finance reform law, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). This was the first lawsuit critiquing this newly reformed bill. The suit questioned LAUSD for failing to properly distribute $450 million to provide specific services for “high-need students.” (Kohli, S. & Blume, H. 2017). LAUSD fairly argued that these funds were, in fact, being used for students with special needs, which benefited most of those “needy” students because those students tend to fall under the category of special education due to the requested
needs. Community Coalition rebutted that statement by saying the indirect impact of special need services was not enough because the funding needed to directly target and be accessible to all who identify as a “needy” student, not just those who qualify within the boundaries of special education.
If this reformed law had not been brought to the table by the Community Coalition, there would have been at least $2 billion in lost services of these “needy” students, being, low-income youth, students in foster care, and English language learners. With that, the California Department of Education announced that the Community Coalition won two years later, in turn, requiring LAUSD to distribute about $50 million a year, over three years, starting promptly in the 2017-2018 academic year. There were a few details within the settlement that were created to ensure that these “needy” students received the necessary resources to best support their education. This money will be allocated to 50 of the highest need middle and high schools in the LAUSD. There are various services that this money must be used towards to best support these in need students, such as, an increase of academic support, mental health services, social and emotional support services, increase access to Advanced Placement course and A-G program (program that tracks progress and ensures graduation), implement school climate initiatives (i.e. restorative justice), graduation and student recovery for dropout prevention, and parent/community engagement. All of these programs should work to not only benefit those high-need, or “needy” students but also the parents, families, and communities they reside in (Tillman, 2017). As these are great specifications to make to ensure transparent expectations are established for LAUSD, there are other guidelines that were created, to ensure both parties were somewhat satisfied with this settlement. For example, in order for the designated schools to receive this money, school principals are required to quickly create and submit a two-year spending plan for some or all of the funding by October 31, 2017. These plans will then be reviewed and approved by the Superintendent within 20 days. From here, it is important for schools to know that a school must “use it or lose it,” meaning the school must spend all funds received in the first two years of the settlement and any unspent money may be reallocated by the Superintendent among the other 50 schools, and if not spent by the end of 2020, then the District has the ability to use the funding for any District purpose (Tillman, 2017). Now as the boundaries of this settlement are better understood, it is important to consider the perspective of the Coalition, being who is advocating for the high-need students, as well as, the LAUSD perspective, as this settlement directly effects their funding considerations.
The Community Coalition’s goal is to better advocate and support these high need students, while LAUSD is a large bureaucracy overlooking 900 different schools. This is said to understand that LAUSD may not have particularly bad intention, but it is important to consider what it means to best support students within this system while also not individualizing services too particularly, making it inaccessible for others to receive necessary services. For the Community Coalition, one is able to focus on the students who are not directly receiving such offered services because, in this case, not all high-need students will meet the qualifications of per say, special education, yet these students still have needs that the school could better support. So, on one hand the Coalition is creating a primary focus on these three groups of students and their families (i.e. high-need or “needy), to increase these student’s academic achievement and success rates. Statistically, these high-need students experience greater barriers in their lifetime, making success much harder and less feasible, especially if services are not being provided. So, it is important that these students receive services to better support their educational experience. As it is important for these students to receive services, it is also practical to take in account the necessary funding. LAUSD recognizes that the necessary funding was not being properly allocated to particular students of need, therefore “leaving students behind.” In LAUSD’s defense, the amount of money that is necessary for all of the at need students to receive specialized services is a lot of money. So, now that the settlement will need to be considered in the LAUSD budget, it is crucial to consider the possible affects this will have on other areas of the LAUSD budget and how the board, community, and individuals will react to the possible money shifts to come. FIND SOURCES FOR ABOVE, MAYBE A STATISTIC?
Scope of Issue
Perspective
Low Income Students and English learners. According to the settlement, $151 million will be used for fifty middle schools and high schools in LAUSD (Kohli & Blume, 2017). This will target low-income families, English learners and students in foster care (Community Coalition, 2017). Low-income students and English learners have a higher chance of low academic achievement and school discipline (Finn & Rock, 1997). The budget will target this population and include services such as tutoring, counseling, and parent participation (Kohli & Blume, 2017). One of the main obstacles for students from low-income families and English learners is the lack of family engagement (Thayer, 2000). This new budget is designed to have services that promote parent engagement. It is also known that low-income students who engage in school activities will have a higher chance of academic success (Finn & Rock, 1997). The new budget allows for services that can increase engagement for the low-income and English learning families. Overall. the exposure to new resources, due to the LAUSD new budget, would increase the chance of low-income students and English learners’ academic success
Foster care. The foster care students are also considered a high-risk population and a targeted group for the new LAUSD budget (Kohli & Blume, 2017). Henrichon (2016) acknowledged that students in foster care have the lowest academic achievement compared to the other high-risk groups. This population also receives little attention at schools, resulting with low learning success (Duffield, Kelly, & Nealis, 2014; Pecora, 2012). Educators and school administrators also are not informed about the factors that impact foster care students’ success in schools (Henrichon, 2016). Currently LAUSD is set to target this population but it is not known what services will be implemented as a part of the new budget. Duffield et al. (2014) and Pecora (2012) acknowledged that consistency is the main issue that impacts low academic success for foster care students. The op-ed is designed to acknowledge these variables and how the fifty schools can implement services for the foster care students.
Middle School and High School. The new budget targets a total of 50 middle schools and high schools (Community Coalition, 2017). Fourteen to seventeen years have a higher risk of engaging in maladaptive behaviors that hinder their academic success (DryFoos, 1947). The new budget targets students who are at that target age and offer services such as counseling services and restorative justice. These services are designed to enhance student’s moral and increase positive behavior (Finn & Rock, 1997). Specifically, students who have positive self-esteem correlates with positive behavior at school and results with academic achievement (Finn & Rock, 1997).
Although the new budget targets middle school and high school, it lacks to acknowledge the elementary school levels. It is known that behavior risk problems have a higher occurrence among among low income students and english learner students (Finn, 1997). This is also seen with the foster youth children. Specifically, the targeted high needs students of LAUSD have a higher chance of maladaptive behaviors in school. More importantly, the problem behaviors are seen in early development (Finn, 1997). Earliest intervention for these groups, is likely to increase their chance of school success (Finn, 1997). Although the budget involves counseling services and engagement opportunities, it will not be used the in at the elementary school level. Rumbergers (1987) states the importance of intervention in the primary school years and the p-ed seeks to address this issue.
Importance. The op-ed addresses the factors that impact the high-risk students and the services that should be implemented to increase academic success. Engagement promotes student’s independence and enables them to create their own academic achievement (Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989) It is important for these groups to also create a relationship between the school staff and peers in order to increase the chances of school success (Wehlage et al., 1989). The services that LAUSD included need to address engagement and how it promotes positive behaviors, affects and cognitive functioning. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris (2004) acknowledged the importance of behavioral engagement as it relates to psychological development at school. LAUSD new services will include counseling for the high needs groups but it is important to focus on psychological adjustment in order to achieve school engagement and school success. Overall, these schools to promote student engagement and enhance their autonomy to reach their goals (Boufford & Couture, 2003; Watt, 2004). Services should involve the students to create goals and promote learning tactics that increase educational success (DeBacker & Nelson, 2000). This will create a sense of school acceptance (Goodenow, 1993). The schools of LAUSD can achieve this through the services they provided.
The Op-Ed is designed to address the importance of these services and how they should be implemented. The op-ed will target the principals and their ability to create a budget plan for the schools. Specifically, the principals of the fifty schools have until October 31, 2017 to submit their budget and the services that will be used (Community Coalition, 2017). If a principal fails to do so the money will be redistributed to the other schools (Community Coalition, 2017). The op-ed is designed to inform the public of the LAUSD settlement and promote the importance of services for the high need students.
Lastly, the Op-Ed is designed to address the need for these services at the elementary school level. Although the new budget encourages engagement and success for the low-income, english learners and foster youth students, it is known that early intervention is pivotal for academic achievement. The next step for LAUSD is to address the elementary schools in need.
Action Narrative: Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times is the largest daily newspaper in the country (Los Angeles Times, n.d.). There is around 1.4 million to 2.4 million who read the Los Angeles Times daily (Los Angeles Times, n.d.). The new budget has allocated money for seeks fifty schools within the LAUSD district (Kohli & Blume, 2017). The op-ed design is to target the administration as well as the parents to ensure proper resources and budget funding is made. The Los Angeles Times is a reputable newspaper that has been covered Los Angeles for over 135 years (Los Angeles Times, n.d.). Los Angeles Times also published an article in regards to the settlement, “Settlement will send $151 million to 50 L.A. schools over the next three years” (Kohli & Blume, 2017). LAUSD targets many enclaves in Los Angeles and Los Angeles Time targets many readers via newspaper and online. Based on this knowledge, Los Angeles times is the most probably newspaper outlet to get our op-ed read and acknowledge for the LAUSD population.
Guidelines. According to the Los Angeles Times, Op-Ed Guidelines (n.d.), the Los Angeles Times will accept Op-Eds with 700 to 800 words (Los Angeles Times, n.d.). If the Op-Ed is selected, the author will be notified within five business days of submission. Submission will be through email (oped@latimes.com) and the author will write the Op-Ed in the body of the email. The author will not be notified if the Op-Ed was not accepted (Los Angeles Times, n.d.) Our Op-Ed has been submitted but there has not been any acknowledgement of the acceptance. It is still within the five-day period.
Ethical and Theoretical Considerations
Social workers honor the NASW by ensuring independence and self-determination for individuals (NASW). Social workers advocate for equal opportunity in the school setting to enable the underserved students to receive the necessary services and tools to achieve academic success while promoting independence.