INCREMENTAL PROGRESS
TOWARDS EQUITY

Tracking the
Distribution
of $3.8 Billion
LCFF Dollars in
the Los Angeles
Unified School
District Since
2013

United Way of Greater Los Angeles
and CLASS Year 4 Local Control
Funding Interim Report Card, 2017

 VISION FOR CLOSING THE LONG STANDING
1AACHIEVEMENT
GAP
Four years ago, Governor Jerry Brown initiated an unprecedented effort to invest billions of new state dollars in
school districts that serve sizable counts of high-need and
low-achieving students. What became known as the Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF) has brought billions of
new dollars to the Los Angeles Unified School District,
including $3.8 billion over the last four years generated
by the ‘targeted student population’ (TSP), which includes
pupils from low-income families, English-learners, and
children in foster care.
In the current 2016 -17 school year, the money generated
from the TSP amounts to $1.1 billion. These supplemental
and concentration grants equal about one-fifth of the entire
funding stream from the state; a substantial part of the over
$8.4 billion annual operating budget, including local and
federal revenues.
LAUSD’s per pupil spending has increased as a direct result
of its substantial high-need population. Funding for each child
(per pupil spending) has climbed about 25 percent above
pre-recession levels across LAUSD, rising from about $9,400 in
the 2006-07 school year, to $12,100 in 2015-16, after adjusting
for inflation.1

MANY THANKS

The CLASS Coalition and allied pro-equity groups
believe that these additional dollars should go
directly towards programs that close the

to the spirit of cooperation offered by the
budget team at the Los Angeles Unified School
to the spirit
of cooperation
District, including Samuel Gonzalez,
Megan
Reilly, Pedro
offeredSimpson.
by the budget
team
Salcido, Carmen Silva, and Cheryl
They generously
share
atcomplicated
the Los Angeles
School
District,
including
data Unified
each year
on which
much
of this analysis is based.
Samuel
Megan Reilly,
Pedroand
Salcido,
SeveralGonzalez,
school principals,
teachers,
parentCarmen
organizers have been similarly
Silva,
and and
Cheryl
Simpson.
They generously
share of Local Control Funding,
available
candid
in discussing
implementation
complicated
each year
which much
this Ho, our research colleague at
sharing theirdata
knowledge
andon
viewpoints
withof
Jennifer
analysis
based. Several
teachers,
UCLA. is
Generous
fundingschool
for ourprincipals,
work comes
from the California Community Foundaand
parent
organizers
have been
similarly
available
and
tion,
California
Endowment,
and
the Stuart
Foundation.
Finally, a huge thank you to
candid
in discussing
of Local
Control
the CLASS
Coalitionimplementation
members who have
provided
ongoing feedback and work to realize the
Funding,
sharing
their knowledge
withorganizations and allies include: Alliance
shared vision
of equity
in LAUSD and
everyviewpoints
day. Our core
Jennifer
Ho, our
research colleague
at Center
UCLA. for
Generous
for a Better
Community,
CARECEN,
Powerful Public Schools, Community Coalition,
funding
for our
work comes Families
from the in
California
CommuniEducators
4 Excellence,
Schools,
InnerCity Struggle, LA Urban League, MALDEF,
tyPromesa
Foundation,
California
Endowment,
andUnited
the Stuart
Boyle
Heights,Teach
Plus and
Way of Greater LA. Thank you all.
Foundation. Thank you all.

MANY THANKS

1 LAUSD - Interim Report Card

 long-standing opportunity gap between high-needs pupils and
their more affluent peers. Using a nuanced equity formula,
total budgets should be focused on the District’s high and
highest–needs schools. Additionally, parents and students
should be meaningfully involved in shaping investment decisions, and the District should align spending to discrete
goals in the Board’s local accountability plan (LCAP).
To achieve this vision is no easy feat. We applaud the District
for shifting towards equity at the high school level in particular.
Contract and pension obligations make real change difficult,
and potential cuts at the federal level further constrain
access to resources. Now is the time to be courageous: to
identify our highest-needs schools and students, to align
LCAP and district goals with meaningful investments, and
to involve the community in supporting LA’s young people.

OF FINDINGS
2 OVERVIEW
FROM THE LAST THREE YEARS
The challenge is quite simple: move new resources to schools
that serve the most disadvantaged students, and identify
what program strategies truly work inside schools. While
we detail below some movement over time, our research
illuminates the following patterns:
■■ Targeting

Dollars. The Board continues to do the bare
minimum to implement the Equity is Justice Resolution,
approved in July of 2014. An ‘equity formula’ of duplicated
TSP counts is applied inconsistently to school allocations
tied to the “Investment Fund” (or proportionality dollars). This
portion of supplemental and concentration funds equals less
than five percent of the District’s operating budget. Over the
past three years, only about a small percentage of the
Investment Fund has gone to schools based on school rank
via the equity formula.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE 1 A Vision for Closing the Long Standing
Achievement Gap

PAGE 2 Overview of Findings from the Last Three Years
PAGE 3 Focusing Budgets on High-Needs Students
PAGE 4  Targeting Dollars – Budgeting to Narrow

This report widened the lens of discussion, and details
variation in total funding sent to schools by the District
over the last three years. While we find some evidence of
increased allocations for higher-needs middle and high
schools, LAUSD falls far short of a serious commitment to
equity, and demonstrates how unfair the system was prior
to LCFF. The District ignores the relative disadvantage of
students when distributing dollars to elementary schools. Hold
harmless policies and concentrations of senior teachers are
two systemic barriers to achieving budget equity.
Strategies that Lift Student Achievement. It has become
clear that there are no commonly held strategies to close
the opportunity gap in LAUSD, and best practices that are
empirically identified are not reflected as budget priorities.
The District has no cross-departmental effort underway to
assess how its 40-plus initiatives supported by the Investment
Fund actually affect the Board’s stated intent of narrowing
achievement gaps.
■■

Further, principals report ongoing instability in their budgets
and constant, time-consuming compliance demands. This
makes strategic and goal oriented budgeting challenging
at the school site level as well. If new programs or positions
do not receive sufficient support, it is unfair to expect that
a single, one time infusion will spur sustainable change.
Conversely, the District’s pending budget shortfall threatens
to efface these support programs. The modest gains that
high-needs schools and pupils have made are at risk without
a cohesive strategy or equity formula.
Community Engagement. Principals, teacher leaders, parents
and students are becoming more familiar with LCFF, one sign
of progress in the fourth year of implementation. Engagement
in the District and school site budgeting, however, remains
inconsistent in its implementation and results. Originally
intended to be a widely participatory and community driven
process, budget building under LCFF at times appears to be
a regimented, inauthentic and compliance-driven process.
■■

PAGE 6   Strategies to Lift Achievement – Tying
Investments to Student Outcomes

PAGE 7  Community Engagement – Strengthening
Knowledge about Local Control Funding

PAGE 9  Policy Recommendations – Mindful Budgeting,
Determining What Works

Achievement Gaps
Greater Equity $3.8 Billion Dollars Later? 2

 Principals have to make tough choices about the small portion
of flexible dollars awarded to their schools based on their
school’s TSP count. They have to balance the requests of
all those involved in the school. While Title I requires a community driven Single Plan, approved by School Site Council,
there is not a formal approval process for the “TSP allocation”
line item, for example.

3

FOCUSING BUDGETS
ON HIGH-NEEDS STUDENTS

Without a strategic and monetary focus on the students and
schools that need the greatest support, LAUSD will not
achieve its goals of “100 percent graduation” and “proficiency for all.” LAUSD serves large counts of students from
low-income or non-English speaking families. Indeed, about
four in five students fall under at least one of the TSP
categories. Due to this immense need, it is even more
important to be nuanced and concerted with investments
and school site allocations.
Wide disparities in achievement persist between schools and
among pupils within schools. Moreover, schools differ in terms
of the concentration or count of unduplicated students from
the TSP student categories.2
Stark disparities in achievement start early on in a subgroup’s
educational career and persist in the rates of college and
career readiness among high school students. We see that
LAUSD has made notable progress in narrowing the disparity
in shares of Latino vis-à-vis White students deemed as
college and career ready in recent years. Progress for Black
high schoolers has been slight.3 English learners, foster
youth and homeless youth have even lower rates
of achievement.

3 LAUSD - Interim Report Card

Much progress remains in closing these sticky achievement
gaps. It is difficult to see how this will come to pass until
dollars flow to schools who serve the most disadvantaged
students – the very children and youths who generate about
$1.1 billion in new yearly revenues for the District under
Governor Brown’s reform.

FIGURE 1 Gaps in percentage of students college and
career ready by race
Achievement gap for Black students in LAUSD by year
70
59%

60

55%

55%

50%

16%

50

18%
21%

40

19%

30

32%

20

62%

20%

46%
41%

SY 2010-11

35%

35%

SY 2011-12

SY 2012-13

College readiness: Black students

SY 2013-14

SY 2014-15

College readiness: White & Asian students

Achievement gap for Latino students in LAUSD by year
70
59%

60

55%

55%
12%

50%

15%

50
40
30
20

19%

62%

23%

50%

22%
44%

31%

32%

33%

SY 2010-11

SY 2011-12

SY 2012-13

College readiness: Latino students

SY 2013-14

SY 2014-15

College readiness: White & Asian students

 4

TARGETING DOLLARS – BUDGETING
TO NARROW ACHIEVEMENT GAPS

Elementary Schools Receive Largest Per Pupil Investments
Our prior LCFF Report Cards detailed how only a portion of
the Investment Fund – equaling less than 5 percent of the
District’s budget – actually goes to schools that serve larger
concentrations of the Targeted Student Population. Given
that the criterion of fairness is not applied to the remaining
95 percent of the District’s budget, this year’s analysis asks
a broader question: Is the District equitably allocating total
school budgets along strategic lines that aim to improve
the educational outcomes of high-need students?
Thanks to LAUSD’s budget office, providing school-by-school
budget data each year, we analyzed per pupil spending
among differing kinds of schools over the past three years,
between 2013 -14 and 2015 -16, the initial three years of
LCFF implementation. LAUSD remains unable to provide a
budget file for a true baseline year, that is, the year before
LCFF kicked-in from Sacramento (2012-13).
After calculating per pupil spending for LAUSD elementary,
middle, and high schools over the past three years, we can
examine differences among types of campuses as fresh
LCFF dollars arrived from Sacramento, as well as modest
gains in federal revenues. This analysis excludes charter,
continuation, special education centers, and alternative
high school facilities.4
Figure 2 reveals that spending is higher for elementary school
pupils, on average, relative to other grade levels. The District
spent almost $7,500 per pupil in the first year of LCFF,
2013-14. This compares with about $6,400 per high school
student in the same year.
This difference is likely driven by a number of historical and
organizational factors. Elementary teachers hold three years
more experience than their high school peers (17 versus 14
years of tenure, respectively), which drives up salary costs.
Average class size is considerably lower at the elementary
level as well (32:15 versus 40:16).

What’s notable is that while the state’s LCFF formula yielded
significantly more dollars per high school pupil, actual costs
remain greater at the elementary level, where inequitable
distributions are sharpest.
This figure also shows that high school students have enjoyed
the strongest spending gains over the initial three years of
LCFF implementation. Spending per pupil for high schoolers
climbed to just over $8,300 (30 percent jump), compared
with moving up $8,650 for elementary children (16 percent
gain) and a 15 percent jump for middle schoolers. The
middle school gains occurred largely in the first year (13
percent increase versus 2 percent increase in 2015 -16).
Examining Whole Budget Distributions over the Last Three Years
Reveal Inequitable Allocations at the Elementary Level
Do the TSP students and schools generating the $1.1 billion
in supplemental and concentration dollars actually receive
fresh resources? To inform this pivotal question, we tracked
per pupil, spending over time, after splitting schools based
on their unduplicated concentrations of TSP pupils – English
learners, low-income, foster, and homeless youths.
Starting with elementary schools, we see in Figure 3 that
student composition bears little association with gains in
per pupil spending. Schools serving fewer than 60 percent
TSP students actually had a 20 percent gain in spending per
pupil, compared to schools with over 90 percent enrollment
of TSP students, which saw a 14 percent increase over two
years.7 The middle TSP school group also receives more per
student than the high TSP grouping.

FIGURE 2 Per-pupil school spending: Total budget
9000
$8,648

8500

$8,147

8000
7500

$7,977

$8,309
$8,137

$7,712
$7,469

7000
$6,946

6500
$6,423

6000

2013-14
Elementary

2014-15
Middle

2015-16
High

 FIGURE 3 Elementary Schools - total budgeted
spending per pupil

10000

$9,039

9000

$8,536

8000

7000

$7,801

$8,159

$7,425

$7,366

$8,649
$7,907

$6,361

6000

2013-14
Low TSP (under 60%)

2014-15

2015-16

Middle TSP (60% to 89%)
High TSP (90% ore more)

FIGURE 4 Middle Schools - total budgeted spending
per pupil

10000
9000

$8,559

$8,073

8000
7000

$8,747

$7,065

$6,295

6000
$5,496

4000

2013-14
Low TSP (under 60%)

$5,893

2014-15

2015-16

Middle TSP (60% to 89%)
High TSP (60% to 89%)

FIGURE 5 High Schools - total budgeted spending
per pupil

10000

$9,596

9000

7000
6000
5000
4000

$8,397
$7,940

$6,4495

$5,831
$5,698

2014-15

2015-16
Middle TSP (60% to 89%)

High TSP (90% or more)

5 LAUSD - Interim Report Card

FIGURE 6 LAUSD’s Investment Fund - aimed at lifting
TSP students (in millions)

400

$389
$380

$372
$371
$317

300

$316

200
150

$4,442

Low TSP (under 60%)

LAUSD – like all school districts in California – must spend
additional dollars to expand or improve programs for TSP
students, beyond the level spent prior to the enactment of
LCFF. The District created the Investment Fund, which seeks
to meet the state’s Proportionality Requirement. While the
District and advocacy groups disagree on the baseline for
these investments, this Fund is a portion of supplemental
and concentration dollars and totals $372 million in the
current school year, or 4.5 percent of the total budget.9

250

$6,555

2013-14

Investment Fund Dollars Not Targeted for Elementary Schools,
Moderately for High Schools

350

$8,572

8000

Note that these numbers do not mirror the total per-pupil
spending estimates reported in the first section, as centrally
held programs such as special education and foster supports,
along central office payouts for building maintenance, health
care and pension benefits do not appear in school-level budgets.

$8,011

$7,019

5000

Turning to high and middle schools, the picture is quite
different (Figure 4 and 5). We see that gains in per pupil
spending have benefitted those campuses serving larger
shares of high-need students – consistent with the governor’s
policy intent. Although keeping with some equity principals,
middle schools are relatively flat in terms of their gains
compared to elementary and high schools. The District’s 31
high schools that serve at least 90 percent TSP pupils saw per
pupil spending climb from $6,550 per pupil to almost $9,600
over the past three years. LAUSD only hosts two high schools
with enrollments less than 60 percent TSP. These campus
budgets leveled-off after a bump in the first year of LCFF
implementation.8 For both middle and high schools, there
was little distinction between school site allocations in
2013-14 year, the first year of LCFF implementation.

100

$164
$146

2014-15

2015-16
Actual Funding

2016-17

2017-18

Proportionality requirement

 Figure 6 shows an initial increase and then leveling-off of
these dollars. According to our calculations, LAUSD is actually
below what they should be allocating for these “new and
increased services to TSPs.

Each dot on Figure 7 represents an elementary school’s per
pupil allocation. Its placement on the vertical axis, spending
per pupil, bears little relation to the share of TSP students that
schools enroll, the horizontal axis. This lack of equity continues
to stem from the earlier decision to award all elementary
schools an assistant principal and librarian, independent of
student achievement levels.

FIGURE 7 Elementary schools - little relationship

between share of enrollment TSP and Investment Fund
spending per pupil (2015 -16)

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,00
500
0

50

60

70

80

90

100

TSP % (unduplicated)

Schools

Linear fit

Nonlinear fit

In summary, the LAUSD Board – after adopting the Equity
Is Justice Resolution over two years ago – still fails to focus
investment funds on schools that serve higher concentrations
of TSP students. Increasing the amount of Investment Fund
dollars without a firm commitment to an equity formula will
not guarantee equitable allocations to schools.

TO LIFT ACHIEVEMENT – TYING
5STRATEGIES
INVESTMENTS TO STUDENT OUTCOMES
The District has developed multiple LCAPs, along with building
a Performance Meter and strategic plan. Broad goals of
100 percent graduation and attendance, proficiency for all,
safety and parent engagement are broken into outcomes
with incremental gains anticipated over the coming years.
If the District wants to see outcomes in these areas, budget
allocations should support these efforts.

2,000

Per-pupil Investment Fund(s)

between share of enrollment TSP and Investment Fund
spending per pupil (2015 -16)

Per-pupil Investment Fund(s)

The equity community believes that under the Equity is Justice
Resolution, the District should allocated all the Investment
Fund dollars to schools who have a high-concentration of
TSPs. Our two earlier LCFF Report Cards detailed how the
existing Investment Fund is poorly targeted on the TSP
population. A recent report by the Partnership for Los
Angeles Schools, which manages 19 schools in Boyle
Heights, South Los Angeles and Watts in cooperation with
the District, concludes that a school’s ranking on the index
plays only a minimal role in the distribution of funds.10 Our
analysis reveals similar results, as seen in figures 7 and 8.

FIGURE 8 High schools - moderate relationship

1,500

1,00

500

The Shifting Structure of School Budgets
0

0

20

40

60

80

100

TSP % (unduplicated)

Schools

Linear fit

Nonlinear fit

On the other hand, the District’s Equity Index was moderately
applied to the distribution of investment funds among high
schools (Figure 8). Per pupil spending from the Investment
Fund is higher, on average, in schools that serve larger concentrations of high-need TSP students. While the overall trend
is consistent with the Board’s stated policy, there are many
schools below the correlation line that are deemed high need,
and it is unclear why schools far above the fit are so varied.

We explored what share of school budgets is allocated for
teacher costs–mainly annual salary and fringe benefit expenses (Figure 9). The horizontal line in each box indicates the
average share of total school spending (from all revenue
sources) that’s budgeted for costs linked to certificated
teachers.
This share declined from 53 to 48 percent among elementary
schools, on average, over the past three years. For high
schools, the share of budget going for teachers fell from 47 to
39 percent on average. These budget shares are larger overall
when looking just at state LCFF dollars. That is, large portions
Greater Equity $3.8 Billion Dollars Later? 6

 of federal and state categorical aid dollars go for non-teaching support personnel inside schools.11 As federal funding
cuts loom in the future, it will be important for the District
to examine what positions are federally and/or state funded.

FIGURE 9 Share of school budgets spent on certified
Percentage of budget allocated for certified teachers, average school

teachers is declining
70

“We’ve never been in this situation where we are now,”
reported another principal, “where we just got a large [budget]
surplus because of our increased enrollment and because of
the number of [high needs] students. I am concerned because
they keep saying one budget is going to roll-over and the other
isn’t, so if that were to happen, we can definitely just buy
computers school wide, right? But I don’t want to do that,”
he said.

60
50
40
30
20

short-term teacher training efforts, rather than longer-term
staff. Most principals report unpredictable fluctuations in
their budgets year to year. And mid-year budget adjustments
add to the uncertainty. So to adapt to these exigencies, our
interviews have noted that principals tend to spend surplus
money on big-ticket items like technological equipment.
“Why hire four new teachers now if you have to let two of
them go one or two years from now?” one principal asked.

Elementary
FY 13-14

Middle
FY 14-15

High
FY 15-16

The District reports that the count of administrative posts
has climbed from 2,036 to 2,407 since 2013-14 as well,
including central office staff (where many special education,
homeless and foster youth support positions are held). Per
pupil spending has grown most rapidly in high schools serving
larger concentrations of TSP students.12 Meanwhile, the count
of certified teachers declined from 26,364 to 25,276 over
the same period. The count of school support staff rose from
3,657 to 4,498.13
The Principal’s Perspective:
Hedging Bets with Consistent Inconsistency
Due to an unclear and inconsistent strategy at the District
level, principals juggle budgets interwoven with compliance
and uncertainty—making it difficult to faithfully allocate LCFF
dollars. Based on our interviews, principals invest LCFF dollars
in a mix of new teacher posts aimed at reducing class
sizes, along with support personnel to address student
needs holistically. All four principals have ‘purchased’ or
are looking to ‘purchase’ counselor posts or new psychologists
to help students prepare for college, or to address deeper
issues of ‘trauma’ and stress stemming from their homes
or among peers.
We also discovered that the uncertainty of budgeting year
to year encourages some principals to purchase materials or

7 LAUSD - Interim Report Card

“I think first of sustaining the position,” another principal
reported. And staffing quota set downtown prescribes the
count of allowable teaching posts, unless a principal wants
to fight and convert about $110,000 in resources (for one
teacher) into other posts or programs. “It’s just easier to buy
a support staff person,” the principal said, who can be let
go if the additional dollars disappear in the following year.
While uncertainty and compliance dictate a lot of principal
spending decisions, some do think carefully about how buying
a new post or mounting a novel program leads to results.
Among a variety of funding streams and reform ideas from
inside one’s school, a bet is placed on a particular initiative.

Based on our interviews, principals invest LCFF
dollars in a mix of new teacher posts aimed at
reducing class sizes, along with support personnel
to address student needs holistically.
One principal drew an upward slope in the air, saying “there
are a lot of studies where you change one variable,” and you
see gains in student achievement.“So, we hired additional days
with an attendance counselor. You would think our attendance
rate should go up. But that may or may not happen,” she said.
“You’re just having to go, based on your best thinking.”
Principals are doing their best in often hectic conditions.
Despite increased investments that have brought some
much-needed relief to schools, there needs to be a greater
emphasis on creating whole school ecosystems that support
TSP achievement.

 ENGAGEMENT – STRENGTHENING
6 COMMUNITY
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING
Sacramento’s architects of Local Control Funding emphasize the
advantages of budget flexibility for District leaders.14 The state,
however, mandates that community, parents and students be
involved in the decision making process about budget allocations
and investments.
LAUSD has moved in a generally positive direction in terms of
its “LCAP Input Sessions,” making strides each year to increase
engagement and report back to participants. The actual impact
of these community demands on district budgeting is not always
clear, however. There are also improvements from our Year Two
findings where principals had not heard of LCFF, nor understood
the intention of additional dollars.
Our inquiry centers on if school leaders and school community
know about and can engage in decision making about LCFF.
A small portion of the Investment Fund called the “Allocation
to School TSP” which gives principals flexibility to purchase
additional positions or materials. The following details highlights
from interviews with four principals at high-needs high schools:
Coordinating Funding Streams Amongst Compliance Demands
Local Control Funding is commonly viewed as just another
“piece of the pie”, one element of a “complicated” or “confusing” budget puzzle overseen by District headquarters. And
the elements of differing funding streams are weighed again
other dollars, including LCFF funds.
“I put all of the budgets under one umbrella,” one high
school principal told us. “You can’t make a decision involving categorical [funds] without including the other [funds],
such as LCFF. I just can’t say, You know what? I’m going
to buy a teacher here without them [any given stakeholder
group] knowing, ‘cause then they [another stakeholder group]
might want to buy a teacher,” he said.
All four principals understand and appreciate the greater
fungibility of the new LCFF funding. Most try to focus the
dollars on TSP students – which typically makes up the
majority of their students. LCFF is sometimes viewed as
yet another funding stream with its own goals and compliance requirements.
The District’s requirement of an annual ‘strategic plan’ from
each principal may help nudge them toward articulating
Greater Equity $3.8 Billion Dollars Later? 8

 their priorities and thinking about an organizational
strategy for addressing the needs of struggling students.
As discussed in our Year Two Report Card, this plan is often
rolled into Single Plan discussions with School Site Councils
with little community buy in.

When examining overall budgeting practices,
it is unclear how all investments tie into goals
and outcomes, particularly when lifting the
performance of high-needs students.
Advice on the compliance elements of LCFF is available from
area district offices, most principals reported. Initial workshops
on the goals and reporting rules around LCFF were quite helpful
in the eyes of these principals. But no one reported sustained
coaching on how fungible dollars and new staff positions
might cohere into a school-wide strategy.
Principals do talk with teacher leaders, parents, and their
school site council to determine weaknesses in their schools –
delineating the students or programming that deserves the
most urgent attention. Unless the principal hires an external
coach, however, they report scarce help from the District in
devising a strategy and evaluating what is working inside
their schools.

Balancing the Intent of LCFF Dollars
Principals for the most part echo LCFF’s commitment to
supporting historically underserved pupils. They have funded
after-school enrichment efforts, class size reduction, new
reading efforts, and additional counselors and psychologists
to buoy these members of the ‘targeted student population.’
The principals also report that they are not supposed to use
LCFF dollars to backstop special education costs.

Photo by
Chris Corsmeier

The issue does arise between supporting English learners and
other high-need student groups, given the District’s focus on
narrowing disparities for EL’s. Creative principals can use new
LCFF funding in ways that frees-up federal Title I or other
dollars to ensure balanced support of all high-need pupils.
One principal emphasizes stronger support for immigrant
or ‘newcomer’ students, who face both language and socialemotional challenges, and three of the four schools had
highlighted dramatic increases in these populations over
the last three years.

RECOMMENDATIONS – MINDFUL BUDGETING,
7POLICY
DETERMINING WHAT WORKS
Our overarching suggestion: The LAUSD Board and Superintendent must develop policy and budgeting practices that
target schools and students based on the varying degrees
of need across the district. Governor Brown’s stated intent is
to lift low-performing students. But the District’s leadership
has yet to specify a budget strategy that moves resources to
schools that serve disadvantaged pupils.
In addition, District equity policies and practices should
be rooted in knowledge of what is effective for raising the
performance of high-need students. For the last three
years, CLASS and other community partners have called
on the Board and Superintendent to do just that. The Board
has made clear progress in widening access to A-G courses
and better serving foster youth. We have welcomed gains
in counselor supports as well. But when examining overall
budgeting practices, it is unclear how all investments tie
into goals and outcomes, particularly when lifting the performance of high-needs students.

 The Board is presently searching for a new budget director
and is about to hire their own Independent Analyst. Both
offices should enrich the District’s capacity to (a) study how
funds are distributed among schools, and (b) trace this
down to schools and classrooms to determine what school
initiatives are truly raising student achievement. The
analytic strategy is quite simple, but it requires a determined, long- term commitment by the Board.
The District can demonstrate a commitment to equity and
reaffirm its own goals of increasing graduation and college
going rates by adopting the following policies and becoming
mindful about implementation:
Distribute additional resources to schools that serve high
concentrations of high-need pupils – the very students who
generate over $1.1 billion in additional aid from Sacramento.
The Board, Superintendent and local area superintendents
must distribute funding equitably to elementary schools, and
increase its commitment to equity at middle and high schools.
Creating a solid foundation for our youth is increasingly
important, particularly as the District expands its A-G
graduation policies. One-off programs cannot thrive in
a constrained or unstable environment.
■■

We look forward to fighting alongside LAUSD
leaders for increased education funding that is
strategically invested in effective means for lifting
historically underserved communities and schools.
To ensure that the funds get to the highest need schools,
it is also vital that LAUSD adopt a new Equity Index that takes
into account additional factors beyond student demographics
■■

to determine a school’s rank on the index. A new Equity Index
will allow LAUSD to assess which of its schools are the highest
need, and to ensure additional dollars go toward these schools.
It is futile to set goals of 100 percent graduation and proficiency for all if we do not target investments and supports
at our highest-needs schools.
Identify bright spots in new and existing programs, school
models, staff compositions and investments that lift the
engagement and learning of high-need students. Great work
is taking place in the Division of Instruction per the the audit
of the 2015 Equity in A-G Resolution. We encourage the same
kind of holistic evaluation that looks at need rank, per-pupil
investment, student outcomes and school climate to guide
program and staff investments moving forward.
■■

Provide principals and teacher-leaders ongoing coaching
on how to deploy fungible LCFF dollars to foster school
wide reform, aiming to improve school climate and enrich
student engagement. The current model of purchasing
support staff and shorter-term resources (instead of teaching
positions) does address community demands for whole-child
supports; sustainability may be in question, however, as the
District tackles its budget deficit and attempts to rein in
pension costs.
■■

Sacramento has managed a return to pre-recession levels of
school spending, but per-pupil support still lags behind most
other states. We look forward to fighting alongside LAUSD
leaders for increased education funding that is strategically
invested in effective means for lifting historically underserved
communities and schools.

 NOTES
1.  1 LAUSD per pupil spending reported in Fuller, Castillo,
Lee, and Ugarte (2016). Will $4 billion in new spending
make a difference? Narrowing achievement gaps in Los
Angeles. Berkeley and Los Angeles: United Way and University
of California. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates per pupil
spending in California at about $9,600 for the 2013-14
school year, compared with $15,100 in Massachusetts and
$20,600 in New York state in the same year. Summarized in
Governing Magazine: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/
education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html.
2.  The TSP categories track against the students that are
‘weighted’ by the state, yielding greater allocations from
Sacramento for these youngsters, including those from
low-income or non-English speaking families, or in foster
care or homeless. ‘Unduplicated’ means that one child is
not counted more than once if she falls under more than
one category for budget purposes.
3.  3 College and career readiness is defined differently
across state and locales. On the college-ready side,
California school districts generally measure readiness as
the number or percentage of twelfth-grade graduates who
complete all the courses required for entrance to the
University of California and/or California State University
(CSU) with a grade of “C” or better.
4.  We exclude any staff costs rooted in headquarters,
including facilities maintenance and health care and
pension contributions made centrally, or dollars not yet
allocated by late fall of each year.
5.  From District Staffing memo found at http://achieve.
lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/185/
FY%202016-17%20Board%20

Approved%20Staffing%20Ratios-Elementary%20
Schools%20website%20Mar%203.pdf
6.  From District Staffing memo found at http://achieve.
lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/185/FY%20
2016-17%20Board%20Approved%20Staffing%20Ratios-Senior%20High%20Schools%20website%20Mar%203.pdf
7.  We use complete data from 68 elementary schools
with student composition that is less than 60 percent TSP.
The median share of enrollment, TSP children, equals 28
percent. Some 275 elementary schools display enrollments
that are at least 90 percent TSP, averaging 96 percent of
students in one of the TSP categories.
8.  Seventy-one high schools serve pupils, between 60 and
80 percent TSP students, and their spending rose from about
$6,450 to $8,400 over the three-year period.
9.  L.A. community organizations including Community
Coalition, InnerCity Struggle, ACLU and Public Advocates
argue that LAUSD over-represented what they had previously
spent on high-need pupils, in turn low-balling what they
must now spend on high-needs students via the Investment
Fund. This pending agreement may bring another $245
million into the District’s Investment Fund. For our purposes,
we do not include the “Undetermined” category on the Target
Investment List.
10. “Making Equity the Foundation of LA Unified Budgeting.”
March 2017.
11. Why would the slice of school budgets going for teachers
decline in recent years? Enrollment decline is likely one
factor: the fixed costs required to operate a campus remain,

while teaching staffs are pared back as fewer students
enroll. Younger teachers have entered open posts in many
high schools as well, as more and more senior teachers
retire, driving down teacher costs relative to prior years.
The CLASS Coalition, and other groups have advocated for
more counselors to boost college access; tutors and aides
have been hired to support English learners; and a new
program to buoy students in foster care has been created.
These efforts –working to narrow achievement gaps – act
to reduce the share of school budgets allocated for certified
teachers.
12. Climbing from about $260 to $500 per pupil in high
schools that served students of which at least 90 percent
fall into the TSP category. Spending for administrative staff
held steady at about $240 per pupil in the District’s two
high schools with enrollments of less than 60 percent TSP.
13. Data reported in Finger Tip Facts, Los Angeles Unified
School District, Updated August 2016.
14. For review of the origins of LCFF, including the
motivations of state Board of Education president Michael
Kirst and state supreme court justice Goodwin Liu, see
Menefee-Libey, D. & Kerchner, C. (2015). California’s first
year with local control finance and accountability. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 23, online at epaa.asu.edu/ojs/
article/download/ 2022/1553. Also, see Kirst, M. (2015).
Lessons learned: Making the Local Control Funding
Formula Work. Ed Source online, https://edsource.org/2015/
lessons-learned-making-the-local-control-funding-formulawork/83864.

Mural art by
Levi Ponce

Photo by
Chris Corsmeier