California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) brought significant changes to how schools are funded. One key aspect involves encouraging smaller class sizes in the early grades. For busy school administrators and program leaders, understanding these rules and their practical effects is essential for smooth operations and effective planning, especially as programs like the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) grow. Let’s explore what LCFF class size reduction means for your schools and how to manage the impact.
Understanding the Basics of LCFF Class Size Rules
The LCFF provides school districts extra funding called the K–3 Grade Span Adjustment. This adjustment adds 10.4% to the base funding for each transitional kindergarten through third-grade student. However, there is a condition. To receive these extra funds, districts must maintain an average class size of 24 students or fewer across all TK-3 classrooms at each school site.
This requirement applies specifically to grades TK, K, 1, 2, and 3. While the state strongly encourages this through funding, it is technically optional. A district could choose to have larger average class sizes in these grades, but it would forfeit the additional 10.4% funding adjustment. For most districts, the financial incentive makes meeting the 24-student average a practical necessity. It is important to remember that this is an average per school site, not a strict cap on every single classroom. Some classes might have 25 or 26 students, while others have 22 or 23, balancing out to 24 or below. Charter schools receive the adjustment funding but are not required to meet the 24-pupil average rule. Districts must certify their compliance annually, making careful tracking important.
How Smaller Classes Affect School Space and Programs
Reducing class sizes in TK-3 often means needing more classrooms to teach the same number of students. For example, if a school previously had four first-grade classes of 25 students, meeting the 24 average might require adding a fifth classroom. This need for additional space creates ripple effects across a school campus.
Rooms that might have been used for libraries, computer labs, intervention groups, or even afterschool programs are often converted into regular classrooms. This space crunch is frequently intensified by the statewide expansion of transitional kindergarten, which adds another grade level that needs dedicated rooms. As a result, afterschool programs like ASES 21st CCLC and ELOP may find fewer available spaces after the regular school day ends. A room previously dedicated to afterschool activities might now be a full-time TK classroom. This can force afterschool programs to operate in cafeterias and gyms or split students across multiple shared classrooms, potentially limiting enrollment capacity even as ELOP aims to serve more students. Lack of adequate space is a significant barrier preventing some families from accessing needed afterschool care.
Funding Implications and Strategic Decisions
The K-3 class size reduction funding comes directly from the LCFF allocation. Districts generally use these specific funds to cover the salaries and benefits of the additional teachers needed to meet the 24-student average. Afterschool programs like ASES 21st CCLC and ELOP are funded through separate state and federal grants. Therefore, LCFF class size spending doesn’t directly take money away from afterschool budgets.
However, there are indirect financial connections. If hiring many new teachers strains the district’s overall budget, less local funding might be available to supplement afterschool programs, perhaps for transportation, extra supplies, or facility costs beyond basic use. Conversely, failing to meet the class size target results in losing LCFF funds, which could tighten the overall district budget, affecting extras that benefit all programs. Districts must strategically balance these priorities within their Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The substantial state investment in ELOP provides dedicated funds for expansion, but these generally cannot be used for new buildings, meaning programs rely heavily on existing school facilities. Ensuring compliance with all requirements for both LCFF class size and afterschool grants is critical to maximizing and retaining all available funding streams. Effective data management systems can play a vital role here, automating tracking and reporting to prevent accidental noncompliance and loss of funds.
Planning for Smooth Implementation and Coordination
Successfully managing the effects of class size reduction requires proactive planning and collaboration, especially regarding afterschool programs. Analyze enrollment projections and plan for potential growth in afterschool attendance, particularly among younger TK and kindergarten students who may require different staffing ratios and activities.
Staffing is another critical area. Competition for qualified individuals affects both daytime and afterschool roles. Consider integrated staffing strategies such as creating full-time positions that combine classroom aide duties with afterschool responsibilities. This approach can attract more candidates, improve retention, and ensure better coordination between the school day and expanded learning time. Afterschool leaders must actively participate in district and site-level facilities planning meetings. Provide precise data on your program’s space needs and advocate for solutions that allow shared use of classrooms, perhaps through defined protocols or adding necessary storage. Open communication with principals, district business officials, and educational services leaders is key. Finally, the LCAP development process should be used to highlight afterschool needs, ensuring that plans for class size reduction also consider the resources needed for robust, expanded learning opportunities.
Moving Forward Together
California’s focus on smaller class sizes in the early grades aims to boost student achievement and provide more individualized attention. While this initiative brings logistical challenges, particularly around facilities and staffing, it also presents opportunities. We can navigate these changes effectively by fostering strong communication between school day leaders, school program coordinators, and district administrators. Proactive planning, shared staffing strategies, thoughtful facility management, and leveraging data tools for compliance and reporting are essential. Ultimately, integrating class size reduction efforts with the expansion of high-quality afterschool programs allows us to create a more seamless and supportive learning environment that benefits all students throughout their entire day. This collaborative approach ensures that investments in smaller classes and expanded learning work hand in hand toward our shared goal of student success.
