From its inception, the most worrisome aspect of Gov. Jerry Brown’s overhaul of public school finances was his insistence on “subsidiarity.”
As he defined it, it meant that the state would pump more money into school districts with high numbers of poor and/or English-learner students, remove restrictions on existing pots of state aid and trust local officials to spend it wisely.
Education reform groups worried aloud that without strong direction from Sacramento, unions, particularly the California Teachers Association, would exert their influence on local school boards to claim much of the new money for salary increases.
The battle was joined in the Legislature and in the Brown-appointed state Board of Education, which was to write rules governing the Local Control Funding Formula.
In the main, Brown’s hands-off attitude has prevailed. Local implementation plans are being drafted in hundreds of school districts, and the unions are pressing for salary increases, saying they are needed to make up for years of austerity and to combat a looming teacher shortage.
That raised a question: Could money meant for high-needs students be legally used for broad salary increases?
View Article