1. SMMUSD Public School Finance Education 2012 Presented by the Financial Oversight Committee

2. Agenda  California Education Spending  Poor Ranking in Nation  Why is this?  SMMUSD Revenue Breakout  SMMUSD Expenses Breakout  Why do we care?

3. California Education Spending  California public schools, unlike those in many other states, receive a majority of their dollars from the state budget, and the largest share of spending supports K- 12 schools.

4. Poor Ranking in Nation California’s public schools are ranked:  46 out of 50 states in K-12 spending per student in 2010-2011. (CA: $8,908, US: $11,764)  50 out of 50 states in K-12 students per teacher. (CA: 20.5, US: 13.8)  47 out of 50 states as a % of Personal Income. (CA: 3.27%, US: 4.29%)  46 out of 50 states in K-12 students per administrator. (CA: 301, US: 203) *California Budget Project, School Finance Facts, October 2011

5. Why is this? 1. Serrano v Priest 2. Passage of Proposition 13 3. California State Budget Cuts

6. Serrano V. Priest  1976 California Supreme Court Decision.  Schools should be similarly funded.  Court found that schools’ dependence on local property taxes violated equal protection rights of students in districts with relatively low property wealth.  The State’s response was to establish limit on the combined state and local revenues received by a school district to equalize the funding available to high and low property wealth districts.

7. Passage of Proposition 13  Passed in 1978, Prop 13 capped local property tax rate at 1%. As a result overall revenue potential decreased.  Prop 13 shifted how schools received their dollars. State started providing funding to School District at the established revenue limit based on socio-economic indicators.  Provided 2/3 vote requirement to increase taxes.

8. California Spending Per Student vs. Rest of Nation Proposition 13 enacted in 1978. Approx. $2,856 less

9. California Fiscal Condition  California State Budget Cuts - The State Legislature has cut overall General Fund spending by 20% since 07-08.  Potential cuts continue for 12-13 school year. Governor is proposing a $370 cut per student equating to $4MM for SMMUSD if tax initiatives fail.

10. SMMUSD Revenue Per Student (Total General Fund including Restricted) *SMMUSD 2010-2011 Unaudited Actuals › State 10-11 › Revenue Limit Funds (General purpose) 5,400 › Categorical (Temporarily unrestricted) 1,000 › Special Education – SB602 620 › Lottery 130 › State $ 7,150 67% › Federal › Title Funding, No Child Left Behind 750 › Special Education – IDEA (83% deficit) 225 › Federal $ 975 9% › Local › Joint-use Agreement with City of Santa Monica - $7.8MM 700 $24mm › Measure Y&YY - $5.5MM 500 › Parcel Taxes - $10.5MM 950 › Income From Assets - $3.7MM 300 › Charitable (SMMEF, SOS, etc) - $1.8MM 165 › Local $ 2,615 24% › Total Funding Per Student $ 10,740

11. Revenue Break-out *SMMUSD 2010-2011 Unaudited Actuals

12. Where does the $ go? Out of the general fund,  Salaries and Benefits accounts for 87%,  Books and Supplies 3%,  Operating Expenses 10%.

13. The data sliced a different way: Of the general fund,  Instruction accounts for 82%,  Building & Facility costs account for 10%,  General Administration accounts for 8%.

14. Other Factors Affect Spending  Staffing Ratio History  Teacher Placement  Special Education Underfunding  10-11 ~ $1,000 per student

15. Staffing Ratio - Primary SMMUSD - 2/9/12 Years 07-0808-0909-1010-1111-12 Grades All Other Title I / Jams All Other Title I / Jams All Other Title I / Jams All Other Title I / Jams All Other Title I / Jams K20 23 25 1-320 23 25 4-530253025302530273027

16. Staffing Ratio - Secondary SMMUSD - 2/9/12 Years 07-0808-0909-1010-1111-12 Grades All Other Title I / Jams All Other Title I / Jams All Other Title I / Jams All Other Title I / Jams All Other Title I / Jams 6-831293129323035333533 9-1231 32 35

17. Highly Trained & Experienced Teachers *SMMUSD 2010-2011 J-90  57% of SMMUSD Teachers are on the top of the salary scale based on their years of experience and education level.  Less than 8% are in their early years of teaching.  As a result, SMMUSD pays out more $$ for salaries than a district with less experienced teachers.

18. SMMUSD’s Depth of Educational Opportunities  Specialized Reading Teachers  Physical Activities Specialists  Comprehensive Special Education Programs and Services  Honors and Advanced Placement Courses  Summer School  Visual, Performing Arts, Music and Dance Programs  Progressive Professional Development  Technology infrastructure and classroom upgrades  Site-based Specialized programs (Magnet, SPARK, Valued Youth, etc.)

19. Why do we care?  Budget outlook continues to be grim and grimmer for the future.  SMMUSD cannot rely on the State or Federal government for additional support….in fact just the opposite.  The community of SMMUSD needs to continue to pull together to bring much needed additional support into the District through fundraising and taxes.