EDL 600: Module 3 Discussion Post

California has an increasing percentage of students representing ethnic minorities.  What implications does this fact have for California school finance?

According to Townley and Schmieder-Ramirez (2015), in 2013 “There are more than a million English learners, which represented 22% of the total enrollment in California public schools” (p. 35). In 2015, that number increased “English learners constitute 22.1 percent of the total enrollment in California public schools” (www.cde.ca.gov, CalEdFacts, Basic Facts).

As an educator, as someone who values education, I recognize the importance of a quality education for all children. I also recognize that when there is such a large percentage of the student population that are not only learning content, but also the language that the content is delivered in, that quality education may need to be approached differently and on a larger scale. Of course, we also know that when those kind of large changes are made, there is a financial impact. There is always a financial impact.

In 1998, Proposition 227 was voted into effect. Essentially, this proposition took bilingual classes out of schools and instead “limited English proficient (LEP) students (were) placed in English immersion classes and then mainstreamed into regular classes” (Townley & Schmieder-Ramirez, 2015, p. 22). Proposition 227 was favored because voters felt that this would better prepare students to not only learn English, but also be able to learn content that was taught in English. The financial aspect of this particular proposition was that the state was required “to provide $50 million every year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students” (ballotpedia.org, California Proposition 227).

It was a long time ago, but from my own personal experience, I think the state should have saved their money and put it to better use. I was in the 2nd grade (I told you it was a long time ago) bilingual classroom. I lived in Perris, CA and my school had a high number of hispanic students, many of whom were my friends. In my classroom were both English and Spanish books, notes on the board were in both English and Spanish, the newsletter was sent home in English and Spanish, directions were spoken in English and in Spanish. I learned so much more Spanish that year by accident, than I did when I took Spanish for 2 years in high school. I remember sitting in the classroom library looking at a Spanish book and not understanding anything. I told a friend how hard it was and she read the book with me. It was benefitted the Spanish speaking students, but it benefitted the English speaking students as well. More students were being positively impacted than placing ONLY non-English speaking students in an immersion class.  

Townley and Schmieder-Ramirez mentioned “the possibility of a new proposition being placed on the California ballot in 2016 that (would) change the restrictions of Proposition 227” (2015, p. 22). I did investigate the new proposition and found out about Proposition 58, which was voted for in 2016. Proposition 58 repealed some of the provisions put into place by Proposition 227. Based on the website Ballotpedia, “Proposition 58 no longer required English-only education for English learners. It allowed schools to utilize multiple programs, including bilingual education” (California Proposition 58, Initiative design). We are past the ten year mark in which the state was having to provide $50 million, so assuming that money was no longer being paid out, Proposition 227 was not requiring any extra funding above paying additional teachers as enrollment increases. In reviewing Proposition 58, it appears that “No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government” (Ballotpedia, California Proposition 58, Fiscal impact).

Ballotpedia (2016). California Proposition 227, the "English in Public Schools" Initiative (1998).  Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_227,_the_%22English_in_Public_Schools%22_Initiative_(1998).

Ballotpedia (2016). California Proposition 58, Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education (2016).  Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_58,_Non-English_Languages_Allowed_in_Public_Education_(2016).

California Department of Education. (2016). Facts about English Learners in California - CalEdFacts. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp.

Townley, A & Schmieder-Ramirez, J. (2015). School Finance. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

EDL 600: Module 2 Discussion Post

React (based on your reading) to one of the two articles on Charter Schools issues that were provided as supplemental reading and discuss its connection to the readings about charter school policy.

When I read both of the articles, it made me more aware of how little I knew about charter schools, especially Why You Might Find a Charter School in a Mall because why would I find any school in a mall?  I read through the article multiple times and picked out a couple of statements that struck me as interesting because it was not necessarily what I had heard about charter schools.  

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/education/might-find-charter-school-mall/print/

As a current teacher in a private school who previously taught in public schools, I was not aware that a charter school fell under either of those categories.  I was under the impression that charter schools were not public, but not private, and that’s all I could articulate.  The article provided some clarification that charter schools do fall under the umbrella of a “public school” because they receive state funding.  Koran (2016) explained that “(Charter schools) are publicly funded schools that operate mostly autonomously” (p. 1).  I didn’t realize that charter schools received funding from the state, but it’s not as simple as that.  Is it ever?  Gownley and Schmieder-Ramirez in School Finance (2015) said that in 1999, Assembly Bill 1600 “gives charter schools the option of receiving funding directly from the state, instead of through their local school district” (p. 22).  Why is that legislation necessary though?  Why is getting funding from the school district so complicated that charter schools need an alternative?  

Another question that I had about charter schools was in regards to enrollment.  The only thing I knew about charter school enrollment was that there was some sort of lottery system in place.  In order to find some answers, I reviewed CCSA’s website and found that charter schools give “admission preference to pupils who reside within the former attendance area of that public school” (CCSA, 2012, p.1).  Then the admissions area is expanded and additional enrollment preference is given to students in the school district that the charter school is located.  Assuming that these two filters provide a high enough enrollment, when is the lottery system put into effect?  Does it take the place of the previously stated filter?

The enrollment question has been a big question for me for the last couple of years.  Previously, in Las Vegas there was an elementary school on our Air Force base (AFB), Lomie Heard, that was part of the Clark County School District (CCSD).  Only students that lived in military housing were able to attend due to zoning.  When Nellis AFB decided not to renew their contract with CCSD, they accepted a charter school’s bid to move onto the base.  Is the charter school able to ONLY accept students from military housing?  If it’s a lottery system, what if students from military housing aren’t chosen?  Are families that are not military able to attend the school?  Are families required to go through the typical military background checks if they are not military personnel?  Is that something that can be required?

Koran, M. (2016). Why You Might Find a Charter School in a Mall. Voice of San Diego.  Retrieved from http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/education/might-find-charter-school-mall/print/.

Townley, A & Schmieder-Ramirez, J. (2015). School Finance. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

CCSA. (2012). Charter School Conversions: Myth vs. Facts. California Charter Schools Association. Retrieved from http://www.ccsa.org/blog/fact_sheet_Charter_Conversion_Myths_Reality.pdf.