To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
February 23, 2006 - As approved by voters in 2002, Proposition 49 requires the state to increase funding for the After School Education and Safety (ASES) program beginning in 2006-07. We continue to recommend the Legislature enact legislation placing before the voters a repeal of Proposition 49 because (1) it triggers an autopilot augmentation even though the state is facing a structural budget gap of billions of dollars, (2) the additional spending on after school programs is a lower budget priority than protecting districts’ base education program, and (3) existing state and federal after school funds are going unused.
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget proposes $133.6 million from the General Fund to pay for the costs of state-mandated local programs in K-12 education and community colleges in 2006-07. We find that the amount proposed in the budget bill for mandates falls short of fully funding ongoing mandate costs; the mandates claims process could be streamlined and simplified by reimbursing districts on a per-pupil basis for all K-12 mandates; recent action by the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) on the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) mandate raises issues about how the state should address local implementation costs of this program; and funding for state truancy mandates could be used more effectively by transforming these programs into a categorical program aimed at reducing truancy and dropouts.
February 23, 2006 - In our Analysis of the 2005-06 Budget Bill, we discussed the range of fiscal issues facing school districts. These included low general purpose reserves, internal borrowing from self-insurance funds, and falling state revenues due to declining enrollment. We also discussed the long-term challenge created by new accounting requirements on retiree health benefits. The financial health of districts has not improved significantly, and may have even worsened somewhat, over the past year. Here we deepen our discussion of the impact of the new accounting requirements on K-12 school districts and reiterate our recommendations for ensuring that districts address retiree health liabilities. We also provide the Legislature with an option to help improve district financial conditions through a fiscal solvency block grant, which would give districts flexible funds to address the broad range of fiscal problems encountered locally.
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget contains almost $400 million in new ongoing funding for seven categorical programs. We recommend rejecting these seven proposals because they: (1) do not address the major fiscal issues facing the state or school districts; (2) take a step backwards for categorical reform; (3) have basic policy flaws; and (4) contain virtually no planning, reporting, evaluation, or accountability components.
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget proposes to spend $1.7 billion more in 2006-07 for K-12 education and community colleges than the administration’s estimate of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee. If approved, this increase would widen the state’s structural spending gap in 2007-08 and beyond, and raises the issue of whether the state would be able to sustain the budget’s proposed overall level of General Fund expenditures in the future. We recommend the Legislature reject all proposals for new K-14 programs and fund Proposition 98 at the level needed to fully fund base program costs in the budget year. While this would result in $1 billion less in K-14 spending than the Governor’s budget, it would still provide an increase of $3.3 billion over the current year.
February 23, 2006 - Our updated economic and revenue forecasts lead us to project different Proposition 98 outcomes than the Governor. Specifically, we estimate a somewhat higher Proposition 98 minimum guarantee for both the current and budget years. We also discuss various issues related to Proposition 98, including an update on the outstanding maintenance factor and our recommendation that the Legislature enact trailer bill language to rebench the Test 1 factor. Finally, based on updated economic data, we estimate that the K-12 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will be higher than the Governor’s projection-5.8 percent instead of 5.2 percent. Funding COLAs at this level could lead to additional state costs of around $300 million.
February 15, 2006 - The Migrant Education Program is a federally funded program that provides supplemental education services to migrant children. This report reviews the state’s implementation of the program. We find that the state could better target resources and better serve migrant students by implementing a comprehensive package of reforms. Specifically, we recommend a number of modifications related to the program’s: (1) funding and service model, (2) data system, and (3) carryover funding process. We also identify funding available to help in implementing these changes. (The California Department of Education has translated this report into Spanish. El Departamento de Educación de California ha traducido este informe al español.)
February 1, 2006 - Presented to the Senate Education Committee.
January 26, 2006 - In 2004, we published A Look at the Progress of English Learner Students, which analyzed the 2002 results of the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). This update assesses student performance on the test in 2003 and 2004, concluding that gains made by students in 2003 and 2004 are roughly the same as 2002. We also make two recommendations for steps the Legislature can take to improve the way CELDT data are used.
January 25, 2006 - We review infrastructure proposals in the Strategic Growth Initiative related to K-12 education. Presented to the Assembly Education Committee.
September 15, 2005 - Presented to the Assembly Education Committee and Senate Education Committee.
May 18, 2005 - Presented to the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on May 18, 2005.
May 18, 2005 - Presented to the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on May 18, 2005.
May 17, 2005 - Presented to the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on May 17, 2005.