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 COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and worsened existing inequities in suburban schools across California. These inequities encompass varying educational opportunities, outcomes, and disparities in basic needs. In districts like Modesto City Schools and Ontario-Montclair School District (OMSD), the crisis unveiled issues such as food insecurity, lack of technology access, and disparities in extracurricular activities, exacerbating the preparation and opportunity gaps. However, this crisis has also spurred a readiness for change and opportunities to address these disparities. It has prompted educators and community partners to reimagine schooling with equity as a focal point, aided by federal and state funds for relief efforts. Both districts are leveraging these funds to address digital divides, expand mental health support, redesign educational programs, and enhance staff services. They aim to sustain these changes by advocating for flexibility in spending and funding mechanisms tailored to local needs, recognizing the necessity for ongoing support beyond the pandemic. Looking forward, district leaders envision a transformed education landscape that celebrates diversity and prioritizes equity.

In preparing for the next school year, California state policymakers must set clear statewide expectations for teaching, learning, and student support, regardless of whether instruction is online or in person. This spring, local school districts scrambled to adapt to COVID-19 with a wide range of responses largely focused on securing delivery of online resources. Now is the time to shift the conversation back to the core purpose of school: learning. The state should establish a minimum amount of instructional time; create an instrument of diagnostic assessment and require its use; adopt instructional continuity plans; and advocate for and secure additional funding.

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.

Principal turnover in the United States has become a pressing issue, with as many as 18% exiting schools annually, associated with detrimental effects like reduced student achievement and increased teacher turnover. While previous studies have focused on predictive models assuming a single type of exiting principal, this research delved into the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the 2008–09 Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS) from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to identify distinct categories among exiting principals: "Satisfied" and "Disaffected." Satisfied principals, comprising around two-thirds of exits, displayed high satisfaction, influence, and minimal school climate issues. In contrast, Disaffected principals, about one-third of exits, reported lower influence, negative attitudes, and more climate problems. Specifically, Disaffected principals felt restricted in setting curriculum and standards, lacked enthusiasm for their role, and often considered transferring out. The study highlights that universal approaches to address turnover might not effectively target the Disaffected minority, suggesting the need for tailored strategies to combat principal turnover.

A new study examines charter school closures due to financial struggles and explores funding patterns impacting their viability. Analyzing nine years of finance data from California, it compares spending between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools, receiving 10% less per pupil in revenue, spend 23% less on instruction and 50% less on pupil support services. They allocate less to administrative costs but invest more in consulting services and operations. This suggests cost-saving strategies such as hiring less experienced teachers and employing part-time consultants. While this fiscal flexibility aids financial stability, it raises concerns. Lower spending on essential areas like instruction and support might affect school quality and academic performance. This challenges assumptions about charter schools' autonomy leading to higher spending on instruction. The findings imply a delicate balance between fiscal flexibility and educational quality in charter schools, highlighting potential sustainability concerns if lower spending compromises student outcomes.

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.

The process of applying and enrolling in college is increasingly expensive and time-consuming, yet students often make less-than-ideal decisions during this crucial phase. Recent studies have shown that students tend to apply to too few colleges, and high-achieving, low-income students often miss out on better-suited options. A new research paper, "Screening Mechanisms and Student Responses in the College Market," explores how seemingly minor factors—such as college application essays and fees—impact student behavior. Analyzing data from 885 four-year colleges between 2003 and 2011, a new study reveals that the requirement of application essays increased to around 57%, while approximately half of colleges raised their application fees by an average of 30% (around $10). The research shows that colleges introducing essays experienced a 6.5% decrease in applications, while a 10% fee increase correlated with a 1% reduction in applications. This highlights that even small changes significantly influence student decisions in the college application process, emphasizing the importance of these procedures for students, colleges, and policymakers.

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.

Year-round school calendars, widely adopted in California due to school crowding, aim to evenly distribute school days. Multi-track calendars, seen as cost-saving, accommodate larger student bodies. There is a belief that redistributing summer breaks could counteract summer learning loss, particularly for disadvantaged students. Research highlights caution regarding year-round schooling. While cost savings are clear, academic gains haven't materialized, impacting high-risk student groups negatively. California showed notably negative effects compared to neutral outcomes in Wake County, North Carolina, where multi-track calendars were used widely. This disparity emphasizes considering demographics; schools with substantial minority or low-income populations may face different challenges. The findings caution policymakers against risking student achievement solely for minor savings. Tailored approaches for schools based on their demographics are suggested. The academic benefits of year-round schooling remain scarce, except for addressing severe overcrowding. Yet, amid tightening budgets, year-round schools are cautiously endorsed as a financial reform, urging further examination and context-specific considerations in policymaking.

This commentary, part of a broader PACE series exploring school finance, speaks to challenges faced by California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The two biggest problems with the California financial system are inequitable revenue allocations and inefficiencies caused by categorical restrictions. Governor Brown's proposal addresses these issues, but critics argue that the system still has other problems. One major criticism is that there are winners and losers in the system. Under Brown's proposal, the allocations for some districts will look drastically different, with some receiving less than others. This is because current allocations have little connection to the costs of educating students and the characteristics of students and schools. Another alternative is to raise the base so everybody "wins," which would provide more flexibility and a more correlated revenue with costs. However, this system still creates winners and losers because allocations would not be as tightly connected to costs as under the current system. Governor Brown's proposal nevertheless helps solve the two biggest problems with California's school finance system and offers a better alternative to the current financial system.

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.

California faces declining enrollment in public colleges amid budget cuts, while demanding more graduates. For-profit colleges (for-profits) offer a viable solution. Despite past demonization, for-profits were significant in 2009, enrolling around 400,000 and issuing 1 in 5 long-term certificates or degrees in California. Partnering with for-profits could bridge educational gaps. However, California’s fragmented higher education system needs a unified state-level body to set objectives, assess needs, and regulate institutions. Creating such an entity could streamline education goals and methods. Additionally, revising the federal 90/10 financial aid policy for for-profits could foster quality. Implementing a modified 90/10 rule in California would require at least 10% of students to pay tuition from non-federal sources, ensuring market-driven quality standards. While this wouldn't solve larger strategic issues, it offers an initial step to ensure educational standards while protecting student and taxpayer investments.

California's education funding system, laden with layered regulations akin to geological strata, restricts innovation and flexibility. Governor Jerry Brown's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) proposes a significant overhaul, consolidating scattered funds into a flexible per-pupil grant. This reform aims to empower educators by freeing them from rigid spending rules, shifting focus from compliance to achieving student goals. Additionally, the plan directs extra resources to schools supporting disadvantaged students, offering supplementary aid based on the level of need. Notably, the proposal doesn't reduce funding but allocates more to districts facing greater challenges. The reformation aspires to create a fairer, more efficient, and innovative education finance system, paving the way for a more promising educational landscape in California.

Assemblywoman Julia Brownley has persistently advocated for substantial changes in California's school finance system. Previous bills aimed at reform, such as AB 2159 and AB 8, focused on a weighted student formula but faced setbacks due to concerns about effectiveness and the Governor's veto. Her current proposal, AB 18, consolidates school funding into three categories: base, targeted equity, and quality instruction. While considered a step towards a weighted student formula, AB 18 maintains existing funding levels for each district rather than establishing uniform base and weight amounts across districts. The bill lacks provisions for equity adjustments, perpetuating irrational disparities in funding allocation among districts. Brownley acknowledges this flaw but understands the immense challenge in altering the amounts of funds distributed to districts. AB 18 presents improvements in simplicity and flexibility for districts but fails to rectify existing allocation disparities. While proposing a structural overhaul, it overlooks the fundamental issue of irrational variations in funding distribution across districts, which remains unaddressed in the current proposal.

The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) adopted Vision 2020, focusing on central office support for schools. This plan aims to guide district work through a Community-Based School Reform Model, allowing flexibility in instructional strategies while providing central office support and maintaining accountability. This emphasizes the district office's role in aiding schools' improvement but lacks specific details. Reforming the central office goes beyond restructuring; it demands a fundamental shift toward direct support for learning. To achieve this, a shared theory of action around learning must guide resource allocation. Additionally, enhancing data literacy in both the central office and schools is crucial for informed decision-making. Moreover, differentiating support and building capacities across schools is necessary, acknowledging that capacity-building isn't just one-way. This requires a targeted approach and access to expertise both within and outside the district office. For genuine reform, collaborative learning partnerships between the central office and schools are pivotal, beyond regulatory relationships. Examining the district's improvement vision through a broader lens that values the role of the district office is essential. The success of SDUSD’s Vision 2020 hinges on understanding the larger frame beyond focusing solely on individual schools.

California's proposed massive cuts to higher education, slashing $500 million from UC and CSU and $400 million from community colleges, will raise fees, reduce courses, and limit enrollment. Chancellor Jack Scott predicts turning away 350,000 community college students, significantly impacting the 45% of first-generation learners. CSU's 35% first-generation population also faces constraints. These cuts affect crucial support programs, services, and class availability, particularly for counseling and childcare. Wealthier UC students shifting to CSUs may intensify competition, disadvantaging vulnerable students. Public dissatisfaction, highlighted by a Public Policy Institute of California study, stresses concerns about affordability and borrowing. Possible solutions, like a sliding-scale tuition system based on family income, supported by 72% of Californians, aim to ease access barriers. Discussions must protect these students and explore strategies ensuring their access and success in higher education, securing California's future.

The push for pay-for-performance teacher salaries could revolutionize education by valuing teaching as specialized talent. This shift, prompted by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and supporters, aims to reward exceptional teaching through test score-based incentives. However, this transition could significantly raise education expenses and transform the teacher compensation structure. Drawing parallels with Marvin Miller's revolutionizing baseball players' wages, the switch from uniform teacher salaries to valuing exceptional talent may yield unpredictable effects. Recognizing and promoting exceptional teachers could mimic how colleges offer star professors premium wages. Yet, envisioning a system where teacher talent determines compensation might generate brutal competition, creating substantial salary disparities among educators. While this approach celebrates exceptional teachers, it's uncertain how this would impact overall teacher wages and the teaching profession as a whole. Considering the historical rise of wages in specialized fields, proponents of this shift may not have accounted for the potential salary demands that valuing teacher talent could create.

The focus on John Deasy's role as a "reformer" and political alliances obscures the deep-seated challenges facing the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Despite Gov. Jerry Brown's budget showing no severe cuts for education, the district confronts fiscal and demographic pressures that could lead to its collapse. LAUSD grapples with declining enrollment due to shifting demographics, losing over 135,000 students in the past decade, leading to a drastic reduction in revenue. Simultaneously, expenses for special education and healthcare have surged significantly, adding financial strain. Special education demands more costly services, while health care costs have risen by 71% since 2002. While potential state revenue decreases may slightly mitigate the impact, the district's survival hinges on Governor Brown's budget approval and voter support for tax extensions. Historical research shows that past reform efforts in the district faced fiscal challenges, indicating that political maneuvers won't alter this reality. Effective changes in education will rely on hard-working individuals navigating these tough financial constraints, echoing the ongoing struggle amid financial limitations for innovative educational initiatives.