In 2013–14, California enacted an ambitious—and essential—reform to improve educational equity by directing state resources to districts and schools that educate large numbers of economically disadvantaged students. The reform is called the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF); it allocates funding to school districts based on student characteristics such as socioeconomic status and provides greater flexibility to use the allocated funds than the previous school funding formula allowed. In addition to the LCFF, which is based on average daily attendance (ADA), districts receive funds based on the proportion of students they serve who are English learners, income eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and foster youth. The equity multiplier, a new policy passed in 2023, is designed to provide even more funding for disadvantaged students.
The commentary is a guidebook for districts, schools, and expanded learning providers in better serving California's 60,000 foster care youth amid the pandemic. For these vulnerable youth, COVID-19 worsened existing trauma, isolation, and educational disruptions due to frequent home and school changes. Collaboration among public systems and community partners is crucial to create caring systems acknowledging individual strengths and needs. To bolster pandemic recovery, the approach should prioritize tailored programs by consulting foster youth about their needs, amplifying community expertise, employing staff knowledgeable about schools, and ensuring accessible health services and multilingual resources. Creativity, flexibility, and continuous learning are vital in addressing the immediate and long-term needs of foster care youth, emphasizing constant evaluation through their perspectives for effective support.
The impact of the pandemic on California students' learning, gauged from 18 school districts in the CORE Data Collaborative, highlights significant learning loss in English Language Arts (ELA) and Math, primarily affecting younger grades. The equity gap is pronounced, notably among low-income students and English language learners (ELLs), experiencing more substantial setbacks than their counterparts. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students faced slower growth, while others accelerated their learning, intensifying existing achievement disparities. Upper-grade ELLs encountered severe setbacks due to challenges in virtual language development. These findings underscore the urgent need for targeted support to redress these disparities, emphasizing the gravity of unequal experiences during the pandemic. Yet, data limitations call for deeper investigations into absent student groups to refine learning loss estimates. Addressing this crisis necessitates a student-centric approach, prioritizing social-emotional well-being and systemic educational reforms to accommodate diverse student needs.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) revolutionized school assessment by emphasizing a comprehensive approach over No Child Left Behind's (NCLB) test-focused model. California shifted from NCLB's single-number school ratings to a multi-dimensional dashboard system to better assess school performance. However, ESSA's current draft regulations advocate for a single, summative rating for identifying struggling schools, contradicting the spirit of multiple measures. The approach of condensing diverse measures into one rating would yield misleading outcomes. For instance, PACE found that schools performing poorly on one indicator might fare well on others. Such simplification fails to identify struggling schools accurately, a crucial step for offering necessary support. PACE recommends a tiered approach, considering each indicator separately, rather than amalgamating them into a single score. California's pursuit of a detailed, dashboard-style accountability system aligns with this approach, offering a more nuanced understanding of school performance and supporting tailored improvement strategies. A dashboard not only informs parents better but also enables informed decisions on school choices, focusing on continuous improvement rather than misleading rankings.
This is one of the most exciting, daunting and critically important moments in California's education policy history. We are all in uncharted territory. Policymakers and educators at all levels of the system are wrestling with the virtually simultaneous implementation of four radically new and promising policy initiatives: the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); computer adaptive assessments developed by the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium; the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF); and a new accountability system that focuses on Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) and an evaluation rubric rather than the traditional Academic Performance Index (API) scores. The implementation of these major reforms has redefined the roles and responsibilities of virtually every education actor—from state policymakers to county superintendents to local school boards, teacher, and parents. States across the country are watching to see whether California will succeed in implementing these reforms and how they can replicate parts of what state superintendent Tom Torlakson calls "the California Way."
Michael W. Kirst discusses the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the CA overhaul of accountability based on local control of education policy. The federal law requires multiple measures for accountability, including some with state choice. Databases for English learners will change significantly. Federal requirements for teacher evaluation will be deregulated significantly. State assessments are all over the place and will be hard to summarize. California is building an integrated federal/state/local accountability system that includes 23 metrics, primarily for local use in Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP) that focus on improving budget strategy. Longitudinal data bases from the past will be difficult to integrate with these policy shifts.
Why California Should Retire the Free or Reduced-Price Meal Measure—and What the State Should Do Next
In 2013–14, California enacted an ambitious—and essential—reform to improve educational equity by directing state resources to districts and schools that educate large numbers of economically disadvantaged students. The reform is called the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF); it allocates funding to school districts based on student characteristics such as socioeconomic status and provides greater flexibility to use the allocated funds than the previous school funding formula allowed. In addition to the LCFF, which is based on average daily attendance (ADA), districts receive funds based on the proportion of students they serve who are English learners, income eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and foster youth. The equity multiplier, a new policy passed in 2023, is designed to provide even more funding for disadvantaged students.
Compassionate Partnerships for Youth in Foster Care
The commentary is a guidebook for districts, schools, and expanded learning providers in better serving California's 60,000 foster care youth amid the pandemic. For these vulnerable youth, COVID-19 worsened existing trauma, isolation, and educational disruptions due to frequent home and school changes. Collaboration among public systems and community partners is crucial to create caring systems acknowledging individual strengths and needs. To bolster pandemic recovery, the approach should prioritize tailored programs by consulting foster youth about their needs, amplifying community expertise, employing staff knowledgeable about schools, and ensuring accessible health services and multilingual resources. Creativity, flexibility, and continuous learning are vital in addressing the immediate and long-term needs of foster care youth, emphasizing constant evaluation through their perspectives for effective support.
COVID-19 and the Educational Equity Crisis
The impact of the pandemic on California students' learning, gauged from 18 school districts in the CORE Data Collaborative, highlights significant learning loss in English Language Arts (ELA) and Math, primarily affecting younger grades. The equity gap is pronounced, notably among low-income students and English language learners (ELLs), experiencing more substantial setbacks than their counterparts. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students faced slower growth, while others accelerated their learning, intensifying existing achievement disparities. Upper-grade ELLs encountered severe setbacks due to challenges in virtual language development. These findings underscore the urgent need for targeted support to redress these disparities, emphasizing the gravity of unequal experiences during the pandemic. Yet, data limitations call for deeper investigations into absent student groups to refine learning loss estimates. Addressing this crisis necessitates a student-centric approach, prioritizing social-emotional well-being and systemic educational reforms to accommodate diverse student needs.
California’s Dashboard Data Will Guide Improvement
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) revolutionized school assessment by emphasizing a comprehensive approach over No Child Left Behind's (NCLB) test-focused model. California shifted from NCLB's single-number school ratings to a multi-dimensional dashboard system to better assess school performance. However, ESSA's current draft regulations advocate for a single, summative rating for identifying struggling schools, contradicting the spirit of multiple measures. The approach of condensing diverse measures into one rating would yield misleading outcomes. For instance, PACE found that schools performing poorly on one indicator might fare well on others. Such simplification fails to identify struggling schools accurately, a crucial step for offering necessary support. PACE recommends a tiered approach, considering each indicator separately, rather than amalgamating them into a single score. California's pursuit of a detailed, dashboard-style accountability system aligns with this approach, offering a more nuanced understanding of school performance and supporting tailored improvement strategies. A dashboard not only informs parents better but also enables informed decisions on school choices, focusing on continuous improvement rather than misleading rankings.
The PACE Perspective on 'The California Way'
This is one of the most exciting, daunting and critically important moments in California's education policy history. We are all in uncharted territory. Policymakers and educators at all levels of the system are wrestling with the virtually simultaneous implementation of four radically new and promising policy initiatives: the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); computer adaptive assessments developed by the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium; the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF); and a new accountability system that focuses on Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) and an evaluation rubric rather than the traditional Academic Performance Index (API) scores. The implementation of these major reforms has redefined the roles and responsibilities of virtually every education actor—from state policymakers to county superintendents to local school boards, teacher, and parents. States across the country are watching to see whether California will succeed in implementing these reforms and how they can replicate parts of what state superintendent Tom Torlakson calls "the California Way."
Michael Kirst on New Federal and State Policies
Michael W. Kirst discusses the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the CA overhaul of accountability based on local control of education policy. The federal law requires multiple measures for accountability, including some with state choice. Databases for English learners will change significantly. Federal requirements for teacher evaluation will be deregulated significantly. State assessments are all over the place and will be hard to summarize. California is building an integrated federal/state/local accountability system that includes 23 metrics, primarily for local use in Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP) that focus on improving budget strategy. Longitudinal data bases from the past will be difficult to integrate with these policy shifts.