Education

Proposition 98 Budget Overview

• Format:
• PDF

March 5, 2013 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance

The 2013-14 Budget: Restructuring the K-12 Funding System

• Format:
• PDF
• HTML

February 22, 2013 - The Governor proposes to restructure the way the state allocates funding to school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education. We believe the Governor’s proposed new formulas would address many problems inherent in the state’s existing K-12 funding approach, and we recommend the Legislature adopt most components of the proposal. Unlike the current system, the proposed formulas would be simple and transparent, fund similar students similarly, and link funding to the cost of educating students. We believe the proposed approach could be improved, however, with some notable modifications. We suggest a number of specific changes to better align funding levels with anticipated costs, eliminate irrational funding differences across districts, simplify the formulas, and ensure important state priorities are addressed.

The 2013-14 Budget: Proposition 98 Education Analysis

• Format:
• PDF
• HTML

February 21, 2013 - The Governor's 2013-14 budget provides $56.2 billion in total Proposition 98 funding--a $2.7 billion (5 percent) increase from the revised current-year level. The Governor dedicates new monies to paying down school and community college deferrals, transitioning to a new K-12 funding formula, restructuring adult education, funding Proposition 39 energy projects for schools and community colleges, and adding two mandates to the schools mandates block grant. The Governor also proposes various changes and consolidations relating to special education funding. Though we think the Governor's basic approach of dedicating roughly half of new funding to paying down existing obligations and the other half to building up base support is reasonable, we have concerns with many of his specific Proposition 98 proposals. In the areas of adult education, Proposition 39 energy projects, mandates, and special education, we provide alternatives for the Legislature 's consideration. Our assessment of an alternative to the Governor's Proposition 39 proposal can be found both in the Proposition 98 report and in a standalone budget brief--2013-14 Budget: Analysis of Governor's Proposition 39 Proposal.

The 2013-14 Budget: Analysis of Governor’s Proposition 39 Proposal

• Format:
• PDF
• HTML

February 21, 2013 - The Governor’s 2013‑14 budget includes a plan to implement the provisions of Proposition 39, which increases state corporate tax (CT) revenues and requires that half of these revenues for a five-year period be used for energy efficiency and alternative energy projects. The Governor proposes to count all associated revenues toward the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee for schools and community colleges. The Governor also proposes to designate all energy-related Proposition 39 funds to schools ($400.5 million) and community colleges ($49.5 million) in 2013‑14 and for the following four years. The Governor’s proposal to count all Proposition 39 revenues toward the Proposition 98 calculation is a significant departure from our longstanding view that revenues are to be excluded from the Proposition 98 calculation if the Legislature cannot use them for general purposes. In addition, the proposal excludes other eligible projects besides schools and community colleges (such as public hospitals) that potentially could achieve greater energy benefits. Further, the proposal does not coordinate Proposition 39 funding with the state’s existing energy efficiency programs. In view of the above concerns, we recommend the Legislature exclude from the Proposition 98 calculation all Proposition 39 revenues required to be used on energy-related projects and not count spending from these revenues as Proposition 98 expenditures. In addition, we recommend the Legislature direct the California Energy Commission (CEC) to administer a competitive grant process in which all public agencies, including schools and community colleges, could apply and receive funding based on identified facility needs.

The 2013-14 Budget: Analysis of the Higher Education Budget

• Format:
• PDF
• HTML

February 12, 2013 - In the 2013-14 Governor's Budget Summary, the Governor expresses major concerns about higher education in California. Most notably, the Governor is concerned about escalating higher education costs, funding models that promote neither efficiency nor effectiveness, and generally poor student outcomes. To address these issues, the Governor lays out a multiyear budget plan. The main component of the plan is large annual unallocated base increases for all three higher education segments. The Governor loosely links these base increases with an expectation the segments improve their performance. Although we believe the Governor’s budget plan has drawn attention to some notable problems, we have serious concerns with several of his specific budget proposals. By providing the segments with large unallocated increases only vaguely connected to undefined performance expectations, the Governor cedes substantial state responsibilities to the segments and takes key higher education decisions out of the Legislature’s control. We recommend the Legislature take a different approach and allocate any new funding first for the state’s highest existing education priorities, including debt service, pension costs, and paying down community college deferrals. If more funding is provided, then we recommend the Legislature link the additional funding with explicit enrollment and performance expectations.

An Analysis of New Cal Grant Eligibility Rules

• Format:
• PDF
• HTML

January 7, 2013 - In response to concerns about the quality of some postsecondary institutions, California recently adopted new eligibility standards for colleges participating in the Cal Grant programs. The standards include a maximum student loan default rate and a minimum graduation rate. This report traces the history of these changes and assesses their impacts. We find that the changes, which primarily affect students at for-profit schools, are generally working as intended but have three notable drawbacks: (1) schools can manipulate the default rate, (2) the rules exempt some institutions without strong justification for doing so, and (3) the standards penalize institutions serving more disadvantaged students. We recommend exploring alternative student debt measures when the information needed to calculate these measures becomes more readily available. We also recommend applying the graduation rate requirement to all schools but modifying the measure to track the graduation rate only of Cal Grant recipients. In addition, we recommend taking into consideration a school's student characteristics to avoid creating a disincentive to serve disadvantaged students.

Overview of Special Education in California

• Format:
• PDF
• HTML

January 3, 2013 - Special education is the catch-all term that encompasses the specialized services that schools provide for disabled students. Developing a more thorough understanding of how California’s disabled students are served is the first step towards improving their educational outcomes. Toward this end, our primer is intended to provide the Legislature and public with an overview of special education in California—conveying information on special education laws, affected students, services, funding, and academic outcomes.

Also, see our 2016 animated video series Overview of Special Education in California.

Faculty Recruiting and Retention at the University of California

• Format:
• PDF
• HTML

December 13, 2012 - In this report, we assess UC’s ability to recruit and retain tenured and tenure-track faculty. We find that (1) UC has been hiring candidates who have received their highest degree from some of the most selective universities in the nation, (2) UC has a long history of hiring its top choice faculty candidates, (3) most new entry-level faculty stay at UC long enough to earn tenure, (4) less than 2 percent of faculty resign from UC each year, and (5) UC’s faculty compensation is competitive with other top universities. These findings indicate that UC generally has been successful in its faculty recruitment and retention efforts. In light of these findings, coupled with the continuing need to prioritize limited state funding, the Legislature will need to assess the relative trade-offs between providing funding for faculty salary increases and other competing budget priorities involving faculty and higher education more generally.

Restructuring California's Adult Education System

• Format:
• PDF
• HTML
• Video

December 5, 2012 - A century and a half after the founding of adult education in the state, we find that the system faces a number of major problems and challenges, including: (1) an overly broad mission; (2) lack of clear delineations between adult education and collegiate coursework at community colleges; (3) inconsistent and conflicting state-level policies; (4) widespread lack of coordination among providers; and (5) limited student data, which impairs the public's ability to hold the system accountable for performance. Given adult education's numerous and significant challenges, we believe the system is in need of comprehensive restructuring. This report lays out a vision and roadmap for a more efficient and effective system. Our package of recommendations includes: (1) a state-subsidized system focused on adult education's core mission; (2) common, statewide definitions that clearly differentiate between adult education and collegiate education; (3) a common set of policies for faculty and students at adult schools and community colleges; (4) a dedicated stream of funding that creates incentives for cooperation among providers, with new adult education funds allocated based on regional needs; and (5) an integrated data system that tracks student outcomes and helps the public hold providers accountable for results.

Presentation: California's Fiscal Outlook

• Format:
• PDF
• PowerPoint

November 15, 2012 - Presented to the California Association of School Business Officials CBO Symposium.

Overview of State’s Child Care and Development System

• Format:
• PDF

October 9, 2012 - Presented to Assembly Select Committee on High Quality Early Childhood Education

Propositions 30 and 38

• Format:
• PDF
• PowerPoint

September 17, 2012 - Presented to Alameda County Office of Education

The 2012-13 Budget: Proposition 98 Maintenance Factor: An Analysis of the Governor's Treatment

• Format:
• PDF
• HTML

May 31, 2012 - The Governor’s Proposition 98 budget package is built on two main assumptions regarding the creation and payment of “maintenance factor.” These two assumptions produce unreasonable outcomes for schools and the rest of the state budget in the near term and long term. In particular, the Governor’s approach would ratchet down the Proposition 98 base in some years (including 2011-12), ratchet up the base in other years (including 2012-13), and, in some cases (including 2012-13 and 2014-15), lead to schools receiving almost exclusive benefit from any growth in state revenues. We recommend the Legislature reject the Governor’s approach and adopt a budget package based upon a more reasonable approach. Specifically, under our recommended approach, maintenance factor is created any time school funding falls below the level otherwise needed to keep pace with growth in the economy, and maintenance factor is paid such that school funding is built up to the level it otherwise would have been absent the earlier shortfalls. We believe our recommended approach both keeps the underlying rationale for the creation and payment of maintenance factor linked and goes furthest in honoring the intent of Proposition 98 and Proposition 111.

Overview of Governor’s Child Care and Preschool Proposals

• Format:
• PDF

May 23, 2012 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education

Assessment of Governor’s May Revision Proposals: Financial Aid

• Format:
• PDF

May 21, 2012 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance