Bowing to pleas mainly from rural schoolhouse districts, Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature left alone state subsidies for busing students to school when they created the Local Command Funding Formula last twelvemonth, while acknowledging the $491 meg program needed to be reformed. On Tuesday, the Legislative Annotator'southward Office proposed three options to make the system more than equitable and rational. Two ­– gradually phasing out the program or reimbursing only districts' extraordinary busing costs – would save the state money. The third – expanding the program to encompass a uniform pct of the cost in every district – could add $260 meg in new costs.

"Adopting whatsoever of the three options independent in this report would exist a notable improvement," the LAO report ended, "and help the Legislature farther its goal of building a school funding organization that is simple, transparent, and rational." Kenneth Kapphahn, a financial and policy analyst for the LAO, wrote the report.

Dwelling-to-Schoolhouse Transportation, equally the state plan is known, covers only near a tertiary of the $one.4 billion that school districts paid in busing costs in 2011-12 to transport about 700,000 students – one in eight – in the state. That per centum is lower than the national average of most fifty percentage.

Federal constabulary requires schoolhouse districts to transport disabled students to and from schoolhouse. The No Child Left Behind police requires districts to provide transportation for students from a low-performing school to a better school if parents request it, which few parents exercise. Simply otherwise, unlike many states, California leaves it up to districts to set the rules for bus transportation, and some districts over the years accept cut back or eliminated the program. Nigh a quarter of the state's 950 districts bus less than x percent of students, while 100 districts – primarily small rural districts that enroll larger proportions of depression-income students – transport more than one-half of their students, according to the LAO. Near twoscore districts spend more than than $one,000 per student on busing – four times the state average.

Based on data for 809 districts, more than half bus 20 percent or fewer of their students, while about 100 districts, about an eighth, bus 50 percent or more. Source: Legislative Analyst's Office report on school transportation

Based on information for 809 districts, more than half bus 20 pct or fewer of their students, while about 100 districts, virtually an eighth, bus 50 percent or more. Source: Legislative Analyst's Part written report on schoolhouse transportation

An antiquated formula for distributing the coin has compounded the disparities. Since the early 1980s, the land has frozen funding for districts, except for toll of living adjustments in some years, without regard to differences in enrollment growth over the past three decades. "As a result, funding allocations at present vary across similar districts for no apparent reason," the study noted, with a quarter of districts receiving reimbursements for less than 30 percent of their costs, with another quarter getting more than than sixty percent of costs reimbursed.

Brown and the Legislature eliminated nearly all "categorical" programs and folded the funding for them into the Local Control Funding Formula, which redistributes money based on enrollments of low-income students, English learners and foster youth. But facing resistance from rural districts and Los Angeles Unified, which argued that busing students to magnet schools was office of its court-approved desegregation plan, Brown and the Legislature preserved Home-to-Schoolhouse Transportation. However, they besides froze the funding level permanently and concluded toll of living adjustments.

That approach, however, didn't address the inequities of the formula, and and then the Legislature asked the LAO to recommend a solution.

The iii options are:

  • Phase out funding for the program over the adjacent several years and let districts decide how much to spend on busing from money it gets nether the Local Control Funding Formula. The state would then have $491 meg to spend elsewhere. Rural districts would complain about the new unreimbursed brunt, simply and so, as the LAO points out, high-cost urban and coastal districts aren't given actress money for the college salaries they have to pay to rent and retain teachers.
  • Establish a threshold for reimbursement and pay about of the costs above that level, easing the burden of districts facing disproportionate busing expenses. Busing consumes five percent or less of total expenses in about 2-thirds of districts. About 70 districts, all rural, spend more than eight percentage of their budgets on busing. Covering 75 percent of expenses above that level would cost the state only most $10 meg per year, the LAO said. The country would and so save $481 1000000 it's paying now.
  • Create a new formula that reimburses all districts for a portion of their transportation costs. This option would have the advantage of creating a compatible reimbursement charge per unit, while creating incentives for efficiency, since districts would continue to deport the bulk of the price. Reimbursing 35 percent of districts' busing expense would add $120 million in funding costs for the state. Roofing l pct of the expense would add $260 1000000 to the $491 million it's now paying.

John Fensterwald covers education policy. Contact him and follow him on Twitter @jfenster. Sign up hither  for a no-price online subscription to EdSource Today for reports from the largest instruction reporting team in California.

To get more than reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource'due south no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.