It costs much more to run schools here, while the state pretends it doesn’t

You might expect California’s school funding formula (the “LCFF”), then, to differentiate across regions to ensure that every district can pay a relative living wage without cutting student services. Yet the state has ignored this concern since the LCFF’s inception. As a result, we have a funding system that vastly understates what school districts in high-cost communities like San Mateo County truly need to operate.

The issue is also obscured by the label of “basic aid” districts — those with local property tax revenue that exceeds state entitlements. These districts are all often assumed to be well-resourced, but the reality isn’t so clear cut. Because state entitlements ignore variation in local costs, we have barely-basic aid districts that may appear adequately funded on paper, yet struggle to meet the actual costs of educating students here. Our districts that fall short of the basic aid label altogether tend to be stretched even thinner.

Unfortunately, alternative revenue sources for schools are hard to count on. The federal government has never paid its promised share of special education costs and its recent actions only signal an intent to restrict federal funds further. The lottery, which only funds about 1% of California’s education costs, hardly moves the needle. The few hyperlocal options that remain also pose their own challenges: parcel taxes require dedicated community campaigns, resources and supermajority voter approval; PTO/PTA fundraising at any material level risks transforming public education into a pay-to-play service.

The consequences of this are real, with a growing divide across the county. While we have a few high-wealth districts that can tap excess local property tax revenue to make up for the state’s shortfall, others are left to do more with less. Redwood City School District, which serves a student population classified as 60% “Socioeconomically Disadvantaged” and 34% “English Learner,” is facing its second consecutive year of budget cuts with few options that avoid impacting student learning. Many other districts are caught in similar situations, contemplating impossible tradeoffs between adequate student supports, optimal class sizes and educator pay.

If California is serious about supporting students in every county, it can help by revising the LCFF to reflect different regional costs of living. Doing so would be making a policy choice to further ground our education funding system in equity over pure equality.

But deciding not to take any action — that is, continuing to pretend it doesn’t cost more to run schools here — is a policy choice, too. It’s one that would suggest an emerging mindset within Sacramento that students, families and residents in San Mateo County aren’t entitled to the same support as others across the rest of the state.

David Li is a member of the Redwood City School District Board of Trustees. Views are his own.