How California’s attendance-based school funding model harms lower-income school districts | Opinion

There are more than 5,500 elementary age children throughout our schools in Perris, Calif., but I can only budget to serve about 5,000 children. Why?

Because the way California funds its public schools constrains me to do so.

California is one of only seven states that bases school funding on the average daily attendance of students rather than the number of students enrolled. The goal of this approach was to provide incentives to districts to combat truancy. In fact, the result of this policy penalizes the most vulnerable communities in the state because they suffer more acute student attendance challenges.

Although our district is in Southern California, the same could be said for a school in the Sacramento area. California’s most economically-disadvantaged school communities suffer the largest financial impacts because they experience higher rates of absenteeism due to things like chronic health issues, lack of transportation options, instability in housing, mental health challenges and family responsibilities.

As the Public Policy Institute of California has noted, school districts with lower attendance tend to have more high-need students. “Changing from attendance- to enrollment-based funding would be a big switch that could potentially mean more funding for underserved student groups,” according to the PPIC.

In other words, funding based on a school’s average daily attendance effectively underfunds the children who need the most support.

Attendance-based funding means the budget I receive for the young students I serve in our lower income community was about $5.5 million short this past year, because we had a 91.78% average daily attendance. This means we were given enough funding to adequately serve only nine out of every 10 students in our schools — which translates into an assortment of challenges for districts like ours.

For example, in Perris, nearly half our students are English learners (nearly 2,500 children). But due to the state’s current funding model, we can only afford to hire two bi-lingual aides at each of our schools.

A lack of full and adequate funding also means we cannot provide transportation to children who live within two-and-a-half miles of our neighborhood schools, leaving many of our families scrambling to get their children to and from school. It means we cannot provide for the mental health services our students need, even though our students are disproportionately more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and/or behavioral outbursts.

A lack of full funding also means it will take us longer than more affluent school districts to shift to the state’s new math framework. It means our schools have insufficient student to staff ratios, less individualized attention, more outdated materials and an inadequate model of support services to address all of our children — all of which further disengage our students from their education, and ultimately contributes to higher absenteeism and lower funding.

This is the ultimate Catch-22: We receive less funding due to student absences, whether the student is excused or unexcused. An enrollment-based funding model, on the other hand, could actually provide the extra health resources, mental health supports, family services, counseling and transportation access that are all absolutely needed to address pervasive and ongoing challenges.

To address these inequities, we must fundamentally rethink how we must effectively fund our schools. Fortunately, that is just now beginning to happen.

A bill passed this year by the California legislature, Senate Bill 98, directs the Legislative Analyst’s Office in Sacramento to analyze the impacts of shifting away from attendance-based funding. This is a great first step, but it’s crucial that this momentum continues to build for eliminating our current funding formula, as this issue is beyond urgent and it is absolutely necessary that our schools receive adequate funding to support students, staff and family needs.

Every student counts, and every school should receive adequate funding along with the necessary resources to support every student, regardless of attendance rate.

We must also introduce more needs-based adjustments within an enrollment-based funding model, allowing schools to directly invest in programs that address the root causes of absenteeism, and tailored to the specific needs of communities. Finally, instead of penalizing schools for absenteeism, we should implement ways to reward districts for improving their attendance.

It’s time to invest in a funding model that recognizes the complexities of poverty — one that ensures that every child is counted and has access to a quality education. We owe it to our students and families to create an equitable system that supports their success rather than penalizing them for circumstances beyond their control.

California cannot continue to accept a funding model that punishes students and families for being in a lower income bracket. We cannot stand silent while the gap between high-income and low-income districts continues to widen. I urge policymakers, educators and community leaders to recognize the urgency of this issue and to continue to take actions to reform our school funding model.