For as long as I can remember, school districts have been demanding more money to properly educate students. But unless the extra funding is carefully monitored, disadvantaged students in particular will be shortchanged (“California’s poorest kids aren’t getting the school funding they’ve been promised,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 7). California serves as a case in point.
The Local Control Funding Formula that became law in the 2005-06 school year provided 20 percent more in supplemental dollars for each low-income student, foster student and English learner – plus an additional 50 percent in concentration funds for schools with large proportions of such students.
On paper, LCFF sounds great. But because of a lack of oversight, too much of the funds have gone into general spending and basic expenditures. A state audit recommended that greater transparency is needed so that the funds are used for whom they were intended.
My point is that simply throwing more money at underperforming schools by itself will do little to change outcomes. Yes, the additional money will make us feel good, but in the final analysis it is not enough.
(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)