California Watch

Every year, educators groan about the unfairness of being required by lawmakers to carry out some task, without getting the proper amount of money to get the job done correctly. Usually the outcries are outright ignored, or dismissed as whining.

But maybe not anymore.

California's Legislative Analyst's Office on Monday called for an overhaul of the state's education mandates after finding a plethora of inefficient state-ordered programs costing school districts $400 million annually. The LAO is a non-partisan organization that analyzes budgetary and policy decisions for the state Legislature.

According to the LAO's report, called "Education Mandates: A Broken System," the state faces a staggering debt burden because of a failure to reimburse school districts for carrying out the programs. This year alone, the unpaid reimbursements have ballooned to more than $3.6 billion, the LAO determined.

School districts and community colleges have to fulfill 51 state-ordered "mandates" a year. They include sending letters to teachers whenever a student is expelled; conducting screenings for the spinal disease scoliosis; physical education tests and reports; mailing parents letters whenever their child has too many unexcused absences; and providing free expulsion-hearing transcripts for low-income families.

The LAO says that the state could save $350 million by wiping out many of these requirements. The study further argues:

• The mandates often do not serve a compelling purpose.
• Costs can be higher than anticipated.
• A recent court ruling will likely make containing costs even more difficult.
• Reimbursement rates can vary greatly without justification.
• The reimbursement process can reward inefficiency.
• The reimbursement process ignores effectiveness.

Some of the report's recommendations are sure to spark debate. Many school districts balked at immigrant and preschool related reforms recently, perhaps over questions of whether the legislation may become another unfunded mandate. And increasingly, when the state ducks paying for these programs, courtroom judges get sour.

After five school districts and the California School Boards Associa­tion sued the state over the issue, a superior court judge ruled in 2008 that the state could no longer stall paying school districts claims by delaying reimbursement. Last year, an appellate court found that another tactic used by lawmakers to reduce the monies owed to districts was unconstitutional.

For its part, the LAO makes clear that it isn't against mandates in principle – just many of the current ones. The report ends by saying:

Continuing to defer mandate costs while avoiding substantive mandate reform has several negative consequences. For school districts and community colleges, deferral means still having to perform hundreds of activities, which are often of little benefit to students, even amid steep budget cuts. Mandates also allow districts and community colleges without justification to claim very different amounts for performing the same activities. For the state, deferral means the debt owed to schools will grow steeply and, without substantive reform, most mandated policies likely will continue to be implemented ineffectively and inefficiently.

We recommend comprehensively reforming K–14 mandates. If a mandate serves a purpose fundamental to the education system, such as protecting student health or providing essential assessment and oversight data, it should be funded. If not, the mandate should be eliminated.