Staff
- Sara Cortez
-
(916) 319-8348
Special Education, Preschool, Child Nutrition, and Facilities - Kenneth Kapphahn
-
(916) 319-8339
Proposition 98, School District Budgets, School Transportation - Lisa Qing
-
(916) 319-8306
California Community Colleges - Michael Alferes
-
(916) 319-8338
Local Control Funding Formula, Charter Schools, Alternative Schools, High School Career Technical Education - Ian Klein
-
(916) 319-8336
University of California; College of the Law, San Francisco; California State Library - Natalie Gonzalez
-
(916) 319-8320
California State University, Student Financial Aid - Dylan Hawksworth-Lutzow
-
(916) 319-8308
Child Care, Expanded Learning, Teachers, and Education Technology - 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.
The 2014-15 Budget: CCC
- Format:
April 2, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
Higher Education Budget and Policy Update
- Format:
- PowerPoint
April 2, 2014 - Presented to CCC All Financial Aid Directors' Meeting
Private Colleges and Universities in California
- Format:
March 28, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Select Committee on Higher Education in San Diego County
Higher Education Performance Metrics
- Format:
March 26, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
The Implementation of the Working Families Student Fee Transparency and Accountability Act
- Format:
March 21, 2014 - As required by Chapter 620, Statutes of 2012 (Assembly Bill 970, Fong), we reviewed the University of California’s and California State University’s compliance with certain student fee and financial aid provisions. Enclosed is our report. In the report, we first provide background on fee policies in the state and then describe the main Chapter 620 requirements. We next review the segments’ responses to the requirements in Chapter 620, provide our assessment of their compliance, and offer a few related recommendations for the Legislature’s consideration.
Financial Aid Overview
- Format:
March 13, 2014 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
Financial Aid Overview-(A) Sub. 2
- Format:
March 5, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
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
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.
Oversight of Private Colleges in California
December 17, 2013 - California's Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (Bureau) oversees private colleges operating in the state, but some institutions are exempt from the Bureau's oversight by virtue of their accreditation. This report compares the oversight provided by regional and national college accrediting agencies with the Bureau's oversight to assess the extent to which accreditors and the Bureau provide the same level of student protection. We make a number of recommendations in the report, including (1) continuing the exemption for most regionally accredited schools but conducting a limited review of business practices for a small number of these schools that are deemed higher risk, (2) reducing the scope of reviews for some nationally accredited schools that currently are subject to full state oversight, and (3) providing an opportunity for exempt schools to volunteer for a limited business practices review to help them meet new federal requirements.
College Affordability
- Format:
October 7, 2013 - Presented to Assembly Higher Education Committee