Staff
- Jackie Barocio
-
(916) 319-8333
Child Care, Expanded Learning, School Facilities, and Teachers - Sara Cortez
-
(916) 319-8348
Special Education, Preschool, and Child Nutrition - Kenneth Kapphahn
-
(916) 319-8339
Proposition 98, School District Budgets, School Transportation - Lisa Qing
-
(916) 319-8306
California State University, Student Financial Aid - Paul Steenhausen
-
(916) 319-8303
California Community Colleges - Ian Klein
-
(916) 319-8336
University of California; College of the Law, San Francisco; California State Library - Michael Alferes
-
(916) 319-8338
Local Control Funding Formula, Charter Schools, Alternative Schools, High School Career Technical Education - Edgar Cabral
-
(916) 319-8343
Deputy Legislative Analyst: K-12 Education - Jennifer Pacella
-
(916) 319-8332
Deputy Legislative Analyst: Higher Education
Publications
Education
To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
Overview of New Funding and Accountability System (A)
- Format:
March 4, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
The 2014-15 Budget: Child Care and Preschool Programs
March 4, 2014 - In this report, we provide an analysis of the Governor's budget proposals for the state's child care and preschool programs. Specifically, we review the caseload and cost assumptions underlying the Governor's proposal. We find that the Governor likely overestimates caseload and underestimates per-child costs—on net leaving child care funding a few million dollars short of fully covering 2014-15 costs. Once additional data is released in April, the Legislature will be able to develop more accurate caseload and cost estimates for the child care programs in 2014-15.
Measuring Higher Education Performance in California
- Format:
February 26, 2014 - Presented to: Senate Education Committee Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
Analysis of Education Mandates
February 26, 2014 - Traditionally, the state has reimbursed local educational agencies (LEAs) for performing mandated activities by requiring them to submit detailed documentation of their costs. In recent years, the state has tried to simplify this process by creating two alternative reimbursement structures. The reasonable reimbursement methodology (RRM) provides reimbursement for a particular mandate using a formula developed in a quasi-judicial forum. The education mandates block grants (one for schools and one for community colleges) provide reimbursement for all active education mandates using a per-student rate established in the budget. Whereas the rarely used RRM process has been very adversarial (once involving litigation) and resulted in long reimbursement delays, nearly all LEAs have chosen to participate in the block grants. Given their overlapping purposes and the comparative advantages of the block grants, we recommend the Legislature repeal the RRM for education mandates.
Overview of Proposition 98 Budget Proposals
- Format:
February 25, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
Review of School Transportation in California
February 25, 2014 - In 2013-14, the Legislature undertook a major restructuring of school finance but retained the state’s Home-to-School Transportation (HTST) program. Recognizing the need for additional reform, the Legislature asked our office to make recommendations for improving the state’s approach to funding school transportation. The state’s existing approach for allocating HTST funding is widely recognized as outdated and irrational. Given the problems with the state’s existing funding approach, we recommend the Legislature replace it with one of three alternatives. In the report, we describe and assess the trade-offs of the following three options: (1) fund transportation services within the new Local Control Funding Formula; (2) create a new, targeted program to help districts that face extraordinarily high transportation costs; and (3) create a broad-based program whereby the state pays a share of each district’s transportation costs. Any of the three options would be a notable improvement over the state’s current approach.
State Budget Update
- Format:
- PowerPoint
February 21, 2014 - Presented to the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association on February 21, 2014.
The 2014-15 Budget: Proposition 98 Education Analysis
February 14, 2014 - This report analyzes the Governor's 2014-15 Proposition 98 budget proposals. The Governor’s 2014-15 budget includes $11.8 billion in Proposition 98 spending increases (attributable to 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15). Of that amount, the Governor dedicates $6.7 billion to paying off outstanding one-time obligations and $5.1 billion for ongoing programmatic increases. We believe the Governor's plan is a reasonable mix of one-time and ongoing spending--eliminating the largest outstanding one-time obligation and significantly increasing ongoing programmatic support for schools and community colleges. The Governor's Proposition 98 wall of debt plan also includes a reasonable multiyear approach to paying off all outstanding school and community college obligations one year before the expiration of Proposition 30 revenues. Our report also analyzes the Governor's specific proposals for career technical education, student assessments, and independent study programs. Though we think these proposals generally have merit, we offer various recommendations for refining them.
The 2014-15 Budget: Analysis of the Higher Education Budget
February 12, 2014 - This report analyzes the Governor’s 2014-15 higher education budget. We continue to have serious concerns with the Governor’s approach to funding the universities, particularly as it significantly diminishes the Legislature’s role in key budget decisions and allows the universities to pursue segmental over state interests. We recommend the Legislature take an alternative approach that: (1) designates funding for specific purposes (including enrollment at the California State University and debt-service payments), (2) shares cost increases among the state and students, and (3) monitors the universities’ performance in specific areas (such as student success). We think the Governor’s approach to funding the community colleges is much better but recommend various ways for the Legislature to refine specific community college proposals. Most notably, rather than augmenting a single student support categorical program by $200 million, we recommend the Legislature consolidate seven student support programs into a block grant, thereby offering colleges considerably more flexibility in deciding the best ways to support their students.
A Review of State Budgetary Practices for UC and CSU
February 11, 2014 - Over the last six years, the state has moved away from its traditional budgetary approach for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). Notably, the state no longer (1) funds enrollment or inflation, (2) designates as much funding for specific purposes, or (3) reviews UC's capital projects as part of the regular budget process. Instead, the state has been providing the universities with unallocated funding increases and allowing the universities to make funding decisions previously made by the state. Another recent change to the state's budgetary approach is its inclusion of performance measures (though the state has not yet determined how to factor these measures into its budget decisions). Despite these changes to the traditional budgetary approach, one aspect that has not changed in recent years is the state's ad-hoc approach to student tuition. We recommend the Legislature return to using its traditional approach to funding the universities but make some refinements. Specifically, we recommend the Legislature resume funding enrollment but set enrollment expectations for different types of students and for a longer time horizon. We also recommend the Legislature fund a new freshman eligibility study. Further, we recommend the Legislature resume funding inflation and assume students and the state share in cost increases. To address concerns about the traditional budgetary approach's lack of emphasis on efficiency, we recommend the Legislature use its recently adopted performance measure relating to spending per degree to monitor the universities' productivity. We also recommend the Legislature review capital projects for the universities through the regular budget process.
An Overview of California’s Adult Education System
- Format:
January 29, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Higher Education Committee and Senate Education Committee
Noncredit Instruction at the California Community Colleges
- Format:
January 29, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Higher Education Committee and Senate Education Committee
Initial Review of CSU's Early Start Program
January 14, 2014 - In 2012, the California State University (CSU) launched Early Start—a program that requires freshmen who do not pass CSU’s placement exams to begin taking remedial courses during the summer before freshman year. Chapter 430, Statutes of 2012 (AB 2497, Solorio), requires our office to report on Early Start participation, demographics, and outcomes. About 27 percent of CSU freshmen participated in Early Start in 2012. A higher percentage of Latinos, blacks, women, and financially needy students enrolled in Early Start compared to all CSU freshmen. Because CSU did not provide data on Early Start outcomes, we were unable to assess whether Early Start affected the time it took for students to become college ready. Moving forward, we recommend the Legislature eliminate the remaining Early Start reporting requirements and instead focus on the reasons why remediation rates remain high. To this end, we recommend the Legislature consider authorizing a broader series of studies on: (1) the appropriateness of CSU’s placement exams and cut scores, (2) whether CSU is accepting students who fall outside its eligibility pool (the top one-third of high school graduates), (3) the rigor of college preparatory coursework in California high schools and the timing of test results that inform what classes are taken senior year, and (4) whether the state's subsidy policies encourage CSU to address high remediation rates.
How Are County Offices of Education (COEs) Funded Under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)?
- Format:
January 1, 2014 - How Are County Offices of Education (COEs) Funded Under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)? This is one in a set of issue briefs examining important questions about education funding in California.
How Are School Districts Funded Under The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)?
- Format:
January 1, 2014 - How Are School Districts Funded Under The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)? This is one of a series of issue briefs examining important questions about education funding in California.