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.
English learners (ELs) face diverse challenges during the pandemic, with varied educational needs and health concerns. The forthcoming academic year will likely amplify the academic gap between EL and non-EL students due to limited access to distance learning. To address this, several policy recommendations are proposed. Universal basic income, health care, and tech access are vital for EL families, especially for those in low-income or undocumented situations. Distance learning must cater to ELs by providing devices, multilingual content, and non-tech learning options. Improved communication with EL families and leveraging their cultural assets are crucial. Extending learning time for ELs, promoting collaboration among teachers, and hiring bilingual family members as aides or tutors are recommended. Assessing returning students' academic status and monitoring funds allocated for ELs' needs are vital. These policy suggestions aim to address EL education challenges amidst the pandemic, stressing equity, resources, and inclusivity in education.
PACE Executive Director Heather Hough cautions that COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted California's education system, highlighting the state's low funding and the substantial financial shortfall necessary to meet educational objectives. Recent research indicates a need for an additional $26.5 billion annually in K–12 education to reach state achievement goals. Decades of underinvestment have left districts financially vulnerable, compounded by the economic challenges triggered by the crisis. The dependence on personal earnings for school funding could result in severe cuts, impacting critical student services and potentially leading to layoffs. School closures have underscored their role beyond education, serving as community hubs crucial for student well-being, safety, and essential services. The pandemic exacerbates existing inequalities in learning opportunities among California students. The urgent call is to recognize schools as central to communities and the state's well-being, emphasizing the necessity for significant post-crisis investments in public education as a priority for California's recovery.
COVID-19's closure of California's educational institutions has profoundly impacted learning, equity, and access. Efforts now concentrate on remote learning support, essential non-instructional services, and aiding students with special needs. PACE seeks to bolster these initiatives, gather best practices, and provide real-time research for informed decision-making. Anticipating challenges upon students' return, especially those facing trauma, PACE plans to focus on data collection, student support, system capacity, and resource allocation. This includes addressing learning loss, supporting vulnerable populations, fostering engagement, integrating services across agencies, and seeking adequate funding amid economic strains. PACE intends to employ diverse approaches—reviewing existing research, collecting new data, testing innovations, and analyzing policy options—to aid educators, policymakers, and the public in navigating this crisis and leveraging education for recovery
The 2020 PACE Annual Conference unveiled the latest PACE/USC Rossier Poll results, showcasing California voters' views on key education-related issues. Presenters emphasized the poll's value in understanding voter concerns. Key findings revealed growing pessimism about school quality, a preference for across-the-board teacher salary increases, and concerns about college affordability and fairness in admissions. Voters also stressed addressing gun violence in schools. The panel discussed the state budget, highlighting the need for enhanced higher education accessibility, increased teacher salaries, and a more nuanced approach to education funding. They debated the governor's budget's alignment with voter priorities, noting the need for more support in higher education and teacher salaries and a more effective approach to recruiting teachers.
Researchers conducted an experiment to determine if incentives could improve low-income students' attendance in tutoring programs provided through Supplemental Education Services (SEdS). Three groups of 5th-8th graders were formed: one offered a $100 reward for regular attendance, another receiving certificates of recognition, and a control group without incentives. Surprisingly, the monetary reward didn't increase attendance, while the certificate group attended 40% more sessions than the control. This contrasts with past studies showing monetary incentives for improved test scores as ineffective, suggesting that mere rewards may not enhance skills without additional support. The certificate approach proved cost-effective, costing $9 per student versus $100 for the monetary incentive. However, wider implementation's effectiveness might diminish due to students' varied perceptions of recognition's value, related to existing academic achievements or repeated rewards. The study's success suggests non-monetary incentives are effective and inexpensive. Policymakers and educators seeking to boost student participation in underutilized programs should consider these findings, emphasizing nuanced research into varying incentives' effectiveness and cost-efficiency to motivate student engagement. Despite these promising results, a comprehensive solution requires a deeper understanding of how different incentives affect diverse student populations and their sustained impact over time.
Education policies often focus on evaluating the effectiveness of interventions without considering their costs. This oversight limits policymakers’ ability to make informed decisions about resource allocation. Understanding intervention costs in relation to their effectiveness is crucial for efficient policymaking. For instance, reducing high school dropout rates, a national priority, could alleviate substantial economic burdens, yet education budgets are limited. Researchers conducted cost-effectiveness analyses on five dropout prevention programs, finding considerable variations in costs and effectiveness. Remedial programs aimed at dropouts were notably more expensive per additional graduate compared to preventative programs, which targeted at-risk students still in school. These findings emphasize the need for cost-effectiveness assessments in educational program evaluations to guide policymaking effectively. Without such analyses, research evidence alone may not provide policymakers with a comprehensive view for decision-making, potentially leading to inefficient resource allocation.
A new study assessed the effectiveness of after-school tutoring programs, specifically the Supplemental Educational Services (SES) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), within Chicago Public Schools. Evaluating these SES providers from 2009 onwards, the research aimed to fairly measure their impact on student achievement by considering student characteristics and school settings. The findings indicated that participating in SES positively influenced student achievement, notably with over 40 hours of tutoring, contributing significantly to annual student gains. Interestingly, there was a decline in hourly rates among providers over time, which correlated with the district's program, and a clear link between provider effectiveness and the number of students served. Successful program attributes, such as effective oversight, coordination, and cost reduction, were identified and could be beneficial for other districts. The strategies developed could be adopted by districts to assess provider effectiveness and provide crucial information to parents, aiding informed decisions. This valuable data could guide California districts granted NCLB waivers in program development and accountability system design. Similar analyses are underway in the Los Angeles Unified School District, highlighting the broader potential application of these findings.
In examining the state of gifted and talented education (GATE), the impact of financial strains on these programs in California becomes apparent. During budget constraints, districts often slash funding for GATE, leading to drastic program reductions. Despite the belief that gifted students can excel without additional resources, international assessments, like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), reveal American gifted students underperform globally, notably in math and science. This underperformance might stem from the inequitable funding landscape where the average district receives minimal state support ($3.38 per pupil), leaving only a minority with additional funding. Advocating for increased GATE funding seeks to rectify disparities rather than create inequality. The present funding discrepancies result in a form of horizontal inequity, suggesting that access to resources shouldn't hinge on a district's wealth. Encouraging uniform opportunities for gifted students, regardless of district economic status, aligns more with equitable education principles.
In education polling, people often rate their local schools highly but give lower scores to the overall public school system. This gap in trust between citizens and the broader system poses a significant issue in California due to its vastness and reliance on state resources. Rebuilding trust in the public school system is crucial for garnering necessary political and financial support. PACE’s recent seminar showcased Strategic School Funding for Results (SSFR), a project in districts like Twin Rivers, Pasadena, and Los Angeles Unified. It aims to grant more autonomy over budgets to individual schools while increasing accountability for resource use and student performance. This shift might enhance transparency in fund allocation but doesn’t solve the broader issue. While boosting confidence in local leadership, concerns about resource usage elsewhere in the system persist. California’s real challenge lies in reconnecting schools with their communities beyond merely enhancing resource efficiency.
For nearly three decades, PACE has facilitated discussions on California's education policies by integrating academic research into key policy challenges. Traditionally, this involved publishing policy briefs, organizing seminars, and producing the annual 'Conditions of Education in California' report, offering comprehensive data and analysis on the state's education system. The launch of "Conditions of Education in California" as a blog marks a shift to engage a wider audience and enable ongoing updates. This platform, authored by PACE-affiliated researchers across California, aims to share new data, compelling research findings, and insights on current legislation and policies. The objective remains fostering informed discussions on education policy challenges in California, now extending the conversation to policymakers, educators, and citizens. This inclusive dialogue is crucial to drive the necessary policy understanding and momentum for improving the state's education system.
"Getting Down to Facts" is a new research initiative commissioned by Governor Schwarzenegger's Committee on Education Excellence, state Democratic leaders, and Superintendent Jack O'Connell. Led by Susanna Loeb, a Stanford Graduate School of Education Professor and PACE codirector, this project seeks to explore California's school finance and governance systems. Its objective is to provide comprehensive insights essential for assessing the effectiveness of potential reforms. The initiative addresses three key questions: the current state of school finance and governance, optimizing existing resources for improved student outcomes, and evaluating the need for additional resources to meet educational goals. The studies from this project are expected to be available by January 2007.
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.
COVID-19’s Impact on English Learner Students
English learners (ELs) face diverse challenges during the pandemic, with varied educational needs and health concerns. The forthcoming academic year will likely amplify the academic gap between EL and non-EL students due to limited access to distance learning. To address this, several policy recommendations are proposed. Universal basic income, health care, and tech access are vital for EL families, especially for those in low-income or undocumented situations. Distance learning must cater to ELs by providing devices, multilingual content, and non-tech learning options. Improved communication with EL families and leveraging their cultural assets are crucial. Extending learning time for ELs, promoting collaboration among teachers, and hiring bilingual family members as aides or tutors are recommended. Assessing returning students' academic status and monitoring funds allocated for ELs' needs are vital. These policy suggestions aim to address EL education challenges amidst the pandemic, stressing equity, resources, and inclusivity in education.
Our Children’s Education Should be a Priority as California Recovers from Coronavirus
PACE Executive Director Heather Hough cautions that COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted California's education system, highlighting the state's low funding and the substantial financial shortfall necessary to meet educational objectives. Recent research indicates a need for an additional $26.5 billion annually in K–12 education to reach state achievement goals. Decades of underinvestment have left districts financially vulnerable, compounded by the economic challenges triggered by the crisis. The dependence on personal earnings for school funding could result in severe cuts, impacting critical student services and potentially leading to layoffs. School closures have underscored their role beyond education, serving as community hubs crucial for student well-being, safety, and essential services. The pandemic exacerbates existing inequalities in learning opportunities among California students. The urgent call is to recognize schools as central to communities and the state's well-being, emphasizing the necessity for significant post-crisis investments in public education as a priority for California's recovery.
Evidence to Inform Recovery
COVID-19's closure of California's educational institutions has profoundly impacted learning, equity, and access. Efforts now concentrate on remote learning support, essential non-instructional services, and aiding students with special needs. PACE seeks to bolster these initiatives, gather best practices, and provide real-time research for informed decision-making. Anticipating challenges upon students' return, especially those facing trauma, PACE plans to focus on data collection, student support, system capacity, and resource allocation. This includes addressing learning loss, supporting vulnerable populations, fostering engagement, integrating services across agencies, and seeking adequate funding amid economic strains. PACE intends to employ diverse approaches—reviewing existing research, collecting new data, testing innovations, and analyzing policy options—to aid educators, policymakers, and the public in navigating this crisis and leveraging education for recovery
Summary of the 2020 PACE/USC Rossier Poll Results Presentation
The 2020 PACE Annual Conference unveiled the latest PACE/USC Rossier Poll results, showcasing California voters' views on key education-related issues. Presenters emphasized the poll's value in understanding voter concerns. Key findings revealed growing pessimism about school quality, a preference for across-the-board teacher salary increases, and concerns about college affordability and fairness in admissions. Voters also stressed addressing gun violence in schools. The panel discussed the state budget, highlighting the need for enhanced higher education accessibility, increased teacher salaries, and a more nuanced approach to education funding. They debated the governor's budget's alignment with voter priorities, noting the need for more support in higher education and teacher salaries and a more effective approach to recruiting teachers.
Monetary vs. Non-Monetary Incentives for Program Participation
Researchers conducted an experiment to determine if incentives could improve low-income students' attendance in tutoring programs provided through Supplemental Education Services (SEdS). Three groups of 5th-8th graders were formed: one offered a $100 reward for regular attendance, another receiving certificates of recognition, and a control group without incentives. Surprisingly, the monetary reward didn't increase attendance, while the certificate group attended 40% more sessions than the control. This contrasts with past studies showing monetary incentives for improved test scores as ineffective, suggesting that mere rewards may not enhance skills without additional support. The certificate approach proved cost-effective, costing $9 per student versus $100 for the monetary incentive. However, wider implementation's effectiveness might diminish due to students' varied perceptions of recognition's value, related to existing academic achievements or repeated rewards. The study's success suggests non-monetary incentives are effective and inexpensive. Policymakers and educators seeking to boost student participation in underutilized programs should consider these findings, emphasizing nuanced research into varying incentives' effectiveness and cost-efficiency to motivate student engagement. Despite these promising results, a comprehensive solution requires a deeper understanding of how different incentives affect diverse student populations and their sustained impact over time.
Using Cost-effectiveness Analysis to Make Policy Decisions
Education policies often focus on evaluating the effectiveness of interventions without considering their costs. This oversight limits policymakers’ ability to make informed decisions about resource allocation. Understanding intervention costs in relation to their effectiveness is crucial for efficient policymaking. For instance, reducing high school dropout rates, a national priority, could alleviate substantial economic burdens, yet education budgets are limited. Researchers conducted cost-effectiveness analyses on five dropout prevention programs, finding considerable variations in costs and effectiveness. Remedial programs aimed at dropouts were notably more expensive per additional graduate compared to preventative programs, which targeted at-risk students still in school. These findings emphasize the need for cost-effectiveness assessments in educational program evaluations to guide policymaking effectively. Without such analyses, research evidence alone may not provide policymakers with a comprehensive view for decision-making, potentially leading to inefficient resource allocation.
The Efficacy of Private Sector Providers in Improving Public Educational Outcomes
A new study assessed the effectiveness of after-school tutoring programs, specifically the Supplemental Educational Services (SES) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), within Chicago Public Schools. Evaluating these SES providers from 2009 onwards, the research aimed to fairly measure their impact on student achievement by considering student characteristics and school settings. The findings indicated that participating in SES positively influenced student achievement, notably with over 40 hours of tutoring, contributing significantly to annual student gains. Interestingly, there was a decline in hourly rates among providers over time, which correlated with the district's program, and a clear link between provider effectiveness and the number of students served. Successful program attributes, such as effective oversight, coordination, and cost reduction, were identified and could be beneficial for other districts. The strategies developed could be adopted by districts to assess provider effectiveness and provide crucial information to parents, aiding informed decisions. This valuable data could guide California districts granted NCLB waivers in program development and accountability system design. Similar analyses are underway in the Los Angeles Unified School District, highlighting the broader potential application of these findings.
Do GATE Programs Take Resources Away from Needier Students, or Do They Reflect an Equal Commitment to All Children?
In examining the state of gifted and talented education (GATE), the impact of financial strains on these programs in California becomes apparent. During budget constraints, districts often slash funding for GATE, leading to drastic program reductions. Despite the belief that gifted students can excel without additional resources, international assessments, like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), reveal American gifted students underperform globally, notably in math and science. This underperformance might stem from the inequitable funding landscape where the average district receives minimal state support ($3.38 per pupil), leaving only a minority with additional funding. Advocating for increased GATE funding seeks to rectify disparities rather than create inequality. The present funding discrepancies result in a form of horizontal inequity, suggesting that access to resources shouldn't hinge on a district's wealth. Encouraging uniform opportunities for gifted students, regardless of district economic status, aligns more with equitable education principles.
Citizens and Their Schools
In education polling, people often rate their local schools highly but give lower scores to the overall public school system. This gap in trust between citizens and the broader system poses a significant issue in California due to its vastness and reliance on state resources. Rebuilding trust in the public school system is crucial for garnering necessary political and financial support. PACE’s recent seminar showcased Strategic School Funding for Results (SSFR), a project in districts like Twin Rivers, Pasadena, and Los Angeles Unified. It aims to grant more autonomy over budgets to individual schools while increasing accountability for resource use and student performance. This shift might enhance transparency in fund allocation but doesn’t solve the broader issue. While boosting confidence in local leadership, concerns about resource usage elsewhere in the system persist. California’s real challenge lies in reconnecting schools with their communities beyond merely enhancing resource efficiency.
Welcome to Conditions of Education in California
For nearly three decades, PACE has facilitated discussions on California's education policies by integrating academic research into key policy challenges. Traditionally, this involved publishing policy briefs, organizing seminars, and producing the annual 'Conditions of Education in California' report, offering comprehensive data and analysis on the state's education system. The launch of "Conditions of Education in California" as a blog marks a shift to engage a wider audience and enable ongoing updates. This platform, authored by PACE-affiliated researchers across California, aims to share new data, compelling research findings, and insights on current legislation and policies. The objective remains fostering informed discussions on education policy challenges in California, now extending the conversation to policymakers, educators, and citizens. This inclusive dialogue is crucial to drive the necessary policy understanding and momentum for improving the state's education system.
Getting Down to Facts
"Getting Down to Facts" is a new research initiative commissioned by Governor Schwarzenegger's Committee on Education Excellence, state Democratic leaders, and Superintendent Jack O'Connell. Led by Susanna Loeb, a Stanford Graduate School of Education Professor and PACE codirector, this project seeks to explore California's school finance and governance systems. Its objective is to provide comprehensive insights essential for assessing the effectiveness of potential reforms. The initiative addresses three key questions: the current state of school finance and governance, optimizing existing resources for improved student outcomes, and evaluating the need for additional resources to meet educational goals. The studies from this project are expected to be available by January 2007.